Small vs Big government

[Doktor Avalanche]

99% of the rich didn't earn that money. Most didn't even work to get that money, it was handed to them, and then hire experts to do the work for them. They don't deserve it, nor did the person who did not work for it. I find it laughable when people defend the super rich who are a parasite to the world.

Odd that according to Forbes two years ago only 20% of the Billionaires inherited their wealth. The rest were self-made entrepreneurs.

Granted this is only in the United States. Around the globe, well, that's a different story.

 

Old bigotry is old. Economic Class warfare=fail.

 

EDIT: By the way y did not answer my question. Is it wrong to steal from others who have earned their wealth?

Edited January 27, 2016 by Lord Asmodeus

[Tali]

Odd that according to Forbes two years ago only 20% of the Billionaires inherited their wealth. The rest were self-made entrepreneurs.

Granted this is only in the United States. Around the globe, well, that's a different story.

 

Old bigotry is old. Economic Class warfare=fail.

 

EDIT: By the way y did not answer my question. Is it wrong to steal from others who have earned their wealth?

No I don't believe in stealing, but being taxed isn't stealing, so who exactly is stealing the rich's pocket change exactly?

 

Also I find its funny your using a right leaning organization to back up your statements.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Olivier Mira

[Doktor Avalanche]

No I don't believe in stealing, but being taxed isn't stealing, so who exactly is stealing the rich's pocket change exactly?

 

Also I find its funny your using a right leaning organization to back up your statements.

How exactly is taxation not theft? Please explain.

 

And quoting Forbes, big deal. NBC is what led me to the article anyways.

[Tali]

How exactly is taxation not theft? Please explain.

 

And quoting Forbes, big deal. NBC is what led me to the article anyways.

Without taxation, please explain to me how we maintain a standing military force, make sure every American has an availability to go get to at least a highschool education, and to maintain the roads? I wouldn't trust corporations with maintaining any of that tbfh with you. You forget the good public services do for the public, and frankly, corporations wouldn't give a shit to maintain any of those without profit.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Without taxation, please explain to me how we maintain a standing military force, make sure every American has an availability to go get to at least a highschool education, and to maintain the roads? I wouldn't trust corporations with maintaining any of that tbfh with you. You forget the good public services do for the public, and frankly, corporations wouldn't give a shit to maintain any of those without profit.

First thing you do need to know: corporations would not exist without the government. Both have a parasitic, symbiotic relationship reliant of one another. I am for business, but not corporatism.

 

Roads. "But who will build the roads?" is the most common anti-libertarian argument. Up until 1860 any politician who ever suggested that the Federal Government be in charge of road building lost. The issue of roads, and central banking, even wiped out two major political parties- the Federalists and the Whigs. Abraham Lincoln was the first, as a Republican(which was made up of abolitionists and former Whigs) to implement national road building on his platform, and even among the Republicans the argument against Federal waste spending on roads did not outweigh the abolitionist platform. In any case even in the mid-1800's the issue was wasteful spending when it was originally done by local and State community organizers.

 

It is not about theft by taxation to build roads; the issue is how it is spent. I like roads- I use them everyday. My home sits right off of one. However, how we pay for them and how they are maintained is like buying a Ford Fiesta at a Bentley price. I would rather fund a non-profit or even a profit based-business that built and maintained the roads than give more to the inefficient system we have in place today. Our crumbling infrastructure is not crumbling because of corporations- it is crumbling due to the lack of oversight by a failed, bloated government entity out to profit its crony friends at the expense of the American public.

 

What I said above can also be applied to education. In fact our education system in this country was originally from the home, to the community and then eventually from the community to non-profit charities well into the middle of the 20th Century in may regions. Once Federal oversight became the norm, our national scores went down as did our scores globally. Either way my only issue is that education needs to be on a local level, at most a State level. Federal Education, i.e. the DoE should be abolished considering it has proven to be a failure. Funding for it should be local, which housing taxes, also known as theft, already funds the schools. Yet if we eliminated the DoE the money would be directly benefiting the local schools without being funneled then distributed.

 

Regarding the military- historically, how would the world be if the United States did not have an immediate standing army? When the 2nd Amendment makes reference to a militia, is it referring to our modern concept of a militia, or was it referring to the citizen-soldier which made up the population of the newly founded United States who fought in the Revolutionary War? "Calling all militia, a call-to-arms!" was a cry heard throughout many of the colonial counties before a conflict. It is a reference to the militants who stood against the British crown. There were many arguments from our Founding Fathers who refused to maintain a standing army. And again the ideals changed with Abraham Lincoln and post-war Republicans who decided that maintaining a Standing Army would better serve the nation despite the psychological trauma, emotional damage and financial costs at the public's expense.

 

And no, I do not forget what good our public services do. I just know that most of the time these services are inefficient. I am not so much of a pessimist when it comes to our citizens, our non-profits and our local businesses who do perform charity. I personally have no faith in our Government, especially at the Federal level. How you have so much trust in  an inefficient system and seem trusting of their practices? It baffles me- considering it is an extremely corrupt entity, moreso than any private corporation, let alone how much the Government funds these private Corporations(hence Corporatism) you adamantly despise, at the public's expense.

[The Governor]

First thing you do need to know: corporations would not exist without the government. Both have a parasitic, symbiotic relationship reliant of one another. I am for business, but not corporatism.

 

Roads. "But who will build the roads?" is the most common anti-libertarian argument. Up until 1860 any politician who ever suggested that the Federal Government be in charge of road building lost. The issue of roads, and central banking, even wiped out two major political parties- the Federalists and the Whigs. Abraham Lincoln was the first, as a Republican(which was made up of abolitionists and former Whigs) to implement national road building on his platform, and even among the Republicans the argument against Federal waste spending on roads did not outweigh the abolitionist platform. In any case even in the mid-1800's the issue was wasteful spending when it was originally done by local and State community organizers.

 

It is not about theft by taxation to build roads; the issue is how it is spent. I like roads- I use them everyday. My home sits right off of one. However, how we pay for them and how they are maintained is like buying a Ford Fiesta at a Bentley price. I would rather fund a non-profit or even a profit based-business that built and maintained the roads than give more to the inefficient system we have in place today. Our crumbling infrastructure is not crumbling because of corporations- it is crumbling due to the lack of oversight by a failed, bloated government entity out to profit its crony friends at the expense of the American public.

 

What I said above can also be applied to education. In fact our education system in this country was originally from the home, to the community and then eventually from the community to non-profit charities well into the middle of the 20th Century in may regions. Once Federal oversight became the norm, our national scores went down as did our scores globally. Either way my only issue is that education needs to be on a local level, at most a State level. Federal Education, i.e. the DoE should be abolished considering it has proven to be a failure. Funding for it should be local, which housing taxes, also known as theft, already funds the schools. Yet if we eliminated the DoE the money would be directly benefiting the local schools without being funneled then distributed.

 

Regarding the military- historically, how would the world be if the United States did not have an immediate standing army? When the 2nd Amendment makes reference to a militia, is it referring to our modern concept of a militia, or was it referring to the citizen-soldier which made up the population of the newly founded United States who fought in the Revolutionary War? "Calling all militia, a call-to-arms!" was a cry heard throughout many of the colonial counties before a conflict. It is a reference to the militants who stood against the British crown. There were many arguments from our Founding Fathers who refused to maintain a standing army. And again the ideals changed with Abraham Lincoln and post-war Republicans who decided that maintaining a Standing Army would better serve the nation despite the psychological trauma, emotional damage and financial costs at the public's expense.

 

And no, I do not forget what good our public services do. I just know that most of the time these services are inefficient. I am not so much of a pessimist when it comes to our citizens, our non-profits and our local businesses who do perform charity. I personally have no faith in our Government, especially at the Federal level. How you have so much trust in an inefficient system and seem trusting of their practices? It baffles me- considering it is an extremely corrupt entity, moreso than any private corporation, let alone how much the Government funds these private Corporations(hence Corporatism) you adamantly despise, at the public's expense.

Holy !@#$ing shit. The amount of libertarian retardation in this post literally makes me want to slit my wrists.

 

First of all, the roads argument is probably the most common because it's a pretty decent argument. If you don't like government built roads, go build your own damn roads then. If you want poorly constructed roads made by non-profit/for-profit businesses, then you're an idiot.

 

Yes, Americas infrastructure is bad, but in the hands of businesses, they'd be even worse because a business would cut corners to save money. You also give this long history lesson that our government used to be against public funded roads as if that's a good thing. You know, our government also used to be pro slavery. I don't think you'd want to go back to that though.

 

Second of all, in terms of education, privatized education just doesn't work. I've already had this argument with that retard Redael, so I'll keep this point short. Charter schools have not improved education, and the profit motive perverts the goal of education.

 

I'm sorry, taxes just aren't theft. Last time I checked, for a civilization to exist and work, everyone has to pitch in. The taxes fund things that help and benefit everyone. If you want to live in a place where government barely exists, and you don't have to pay taxes, then move to !@#$ing Ethiopia or Somalia.

Edited February 3, 2016 by The Governor

[Doktor Avalanche]

Holy !@#$ shit. The amount of libertarian retardation in this post literally makes me want to slit my wrists.

Suck a fat one, Guv.

 

First of all, the roads argument is probably the most common because it's a pretty decent argument. If you don't like government built roads, go build your own damn roads then. If you want poorly constructed roads made by non-profit/for-profit businesses, then you're an idiot.

 

Quite a few highways in the mid-west from Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri and Illinois are actually well-constructed, maintained, private roads and used publicly. Show me evidence regarding private roads that are used publicly that are poorly constructed and poorly maintained. I can show you some poorly constructed and maintained public roads our government created with our tax dollars.

 

Yes, Americas infrastructure is bad, but in the hands of businesses, they'd be even worse because a business would cut corners to save money. You also give this long history lesson that our government used to be against public funded roads as if that's a good thing. You know, our government also used to be pro slavery. I don't think you'd want to go back to that though.

 

One example which speaks for itself is the space industry. The private industry has excelled farther in the last six years than NASA has in thirty. Cutting corners in the private sector only creates losses in revenue and has been proven to do so in multiple reports of loss on Wall Street and news. Your bias against private growth blinds you.

 

Bringing slavery into the loop is pointless and only shows your lack of discussion to simply slander my points. It only discredits your inability to prove your failed point.

 

Second of all, in terms of education, privatized education just doesn't work. I've already had this argument with that retard Redael, so I'll keep this point short. Charter schools have not improved education, and the profit motive perverts the goal of education.

 

My suggestion was to eliminate the Federal funding and have it maintained by the individual States for funding. Eliminate the DoE which takes away from the local schools and instead keep the money at home, i.e. local. That was my argument, but of course you missed my point.

 

I'm sorry, taxes just aren't theft. Last time I checked, for a civilization to exist and work, everyone has to pitch in. The taxes fund things that help and benefit everyone. If you want to live in a place where government barely exists, and you don't have to pay taxes, then move to !@#$ Ethiopia or Somalia.

"Move to Somalia!" is something commonly balked about by idiots who assume the Stratocracies of Somalia's Warlords is an Anarchist society. In any case the fact is, regardless if you believe it is acceptable or not, taxation is theft. Taxes of all kinds discourage production. We work to satisfy our desires and needs, not to support the state. When the results of our labor is taken from us, whether by thugs, crooks or by our supposedly organized society, our natural inclination is to limit our production to the amount we can keep and enjoy.

 

Mises wrote:

"The current philosophy is tending toward the identification of politics with society, the eradication of the individual as the essential unit and the substitution of a metaphysical whole, and hence the elimination of the concept of private property. Taxation is now justified not by the need of revenue for the carrying on of specific social services, but as the necessary means for unspecified social betterment."

[The Governor]

Suck a fat one, Guv.

 

 

Quite a few highways in the mid-west from Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri and Illinois are actually well-constructed, maintained, private roads and used publicly. Show me evidence regarding private roads that are used publicly that are poorly constructed and poorly maintained. I can show you some poorly constructed and maintained public roads our government created with our tax dollars.

 

 

One example which speaks for itself is the space industry. The private industry has excelled farther in the last six years than NASA has in thirty. Cutting corners in the private sector only creates losses in revenue and has been proven to do so in multiple reports of loss on Wall Street and news. Your bias against private growth blinds you.

 

Bringing slavery into the loop is pointless and only shows your lack of discussion to simply slander my points. It only discredits your inability to prove your failed point.

 

 

My suggestion was to eliminate the Federal funding and have it maintained by the individual States for funding. Eliminate the DoE which takes away from the local schools and instead keep the money at home, i.e. local. That was my argument, but of course you missed my point.

 

 

"Move to Somalia!" is something commonly balked about by idiots who assume the Stratocracies of Somalia's Warlords is an Anarchist society. In any case the fact is, regardless if you believe it is acceptable or not, taxation is theft. Taxes of all kinds discourage production. We work to satisfy our desires and needs, not to support the state. When the results of our labor is taken from us, whether by thugs, crooks or by our supposedly organized society, our natural inclination is to limit our production to the amount we can keep and enjoy.

 

Mises wrote:

 

 

"The current philosophy is tending toward the identification of politics with society, the eradication of the individual as the essential unit and the substitution of a metaphysical whole, and hence the elimination of the concept of private property. Taxation is now justified not by the need of revenue for the carrying on of specific social services, but as the necessary means for unspecified social betterment."

One example I can give for poorly maintained private roads are in Hawaii. They're so poor in fact that they're actually hurting local businesses.

And yeah, there are SOME private owned roads that are well maintained, but you have to pay a toll to drive on them. So you're saying you're willing to pay a toll to some fat-cat private owner, but not !@#$ taxes which benefit everyone? How about we just change the term name of 'taxes' to 'toll' so that selfish, inept !@#$ libertarian cave men like you would be willing to actually help out.

 

Also, you claim private space industries have excelled farther than NASA. Well I don't !@#$ see private industries landing rovers on Mars. Or take the ESA for example, they landed on a comet. I don't see private space industries doing anything like this. I don't see or hear about them taking large leaps in terms of science and space exploration. Probably because the profit motive has destroyed the goal of space travel.

 

And no, education shouldn't be funded locally State by State, because then the country would be even more illiterate than it already is. Take New York, they spend around $14,000 per pupil; which is the highest in the nation Then take Utah, they spend only around $6,000, which is the lowest in the nation. (And when you include things like Salaries, Wages, and Employee Benefits, the numbers vary even more.)

So basically, education would turn into a cluster !@#$ and students who grow up in States that don't value education as much get heavily !@#$ed over.

 

Taxes aren't theft, you're just a greedy mother !@#$er who doesn't want to pay his fair share. You know, when I told you to move to Somalia before, I was poking fun and making a joke about your silly views, but now I really do want you to move there. You're a leech on society, get the !@#$ out.

[Redael]

Could we please stop saying "fair share" the top 5% pays 25% of Americas taxes, which means the rich are paying attention 5 times as many taxes as regular citizens, what is the fair share exactly when we're already paying more than our fair share?

[Doktor Avalanche]

Taxes aren't theft, you're just a greedy mother !@#$er who doesn't want to pay his fair share. You know, when I told you to move to Somalia before, I was poking fun and making a joke about your silly views, but now I really do want you to move there. You're a leech on society, get the !@#$ out.

The silly view is the insane one, which is repeating the same failures and continuing to pay for them regardless of their failings. I have also paid more than you will ever know for this country and to live in it. I have also earned my right to complain about how they spend our hard-earned tax dollars with blood. The only leeching I see happening is on the teet of compliancy.

 

But hey, if you like how things are, enjoy. Otherwise if you disagree with how your tax dollars are being spent, then question.

[Big Brother]

Could we please stop saying "fair share" the top 5% pays 25% of Americas taxes, which means the rich are paying attention 5 times as many taxes as regular citizens, what is the fair share exactly when we're already paying more than our fair share?

 

 

 

Just screams "fair", right?

 

"Still, the wealthy are paying more taxes on a federal level simply because they are making so much more money. The top 10% of taxpayers take home 45% of the nation's income, according to Citizens for Tax Justice. Moreover, they seem to be getting richer all the time.

 

"The vast majority of income gains have gone to the people at the top," he said.

And it's this growing issue of income inequality that seems to anger people the most. Overall salaries and wages haven't even kept pace with inflation over the past few years."

 

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/index.html

Edited February 3, 2016 by Big Brother

[Redael]

 

 

Just screams "fair", right?

 

"Still, the wealthy are paying more taxes on a federal level simply because they are making so much more money. The top 10% of taxpayers take home 45% of the nation's income, according to Citizens for Tax Justice. Moreover, they seem to be getting richer all the time.

 

"The vast majority of income gains have gone to the people at the top," he said.

And it's this growing issue of income inequality that seems to anger people the most. Overall salaries and wages haven't even kept pace with inflation over the past few years."

 

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/index.html

Socialist want the top 1% top pay over 50% tax rates, how is it fair to have over half your income going to other people, and the top 0.01% drastically change 1% statistics

[Hao Huiyu]

Socialist want the top 1% top pay over 50% tax rates, how is it fair to have over half your income going to other people, and the top 0.01% drastically change 1% statistics

Because they earn so much money that the fact that they're paying more tax hurts them a lot less than it does for those who make less. See Progressive Taxation.

[Redael]

Because they earn so much money that the fact that they're paying more tax hurts them a lot less than it does for those who make less. See Progressive Taxation.

Here's how a flat tax of lets say 10%(random number) would work. Rich pay 10% of there income which is more, but is proportionate. If a flat tax was $50 dollars a day(agian random number) it would be unfair, a flat percent tax would be fair

[Tali]

Here's how a flat tax of lets say 10%(random number) would work. Rich pay 10% of there income which is more, but is proportionate. If a flat tax was $50 dollars a day(agian random number) it would be unfair, a flat percent tax would be fair

I think its unfair for the rich to recieve millions of Corporate Welfare that is taken from the poor...

Edited February 3, 2016 by Olivier Mira

[Hao Huiyu]

I don't see what's so wrong with the redistribution of wealth? Someone going from an income of £150k to £200k will see a lot less of a difference than someone who goes from £50k to £70k, so it's not really some huge issue that we're taxing away some of the cherry on their cake. I am a fan of Welfare states so I'm obviously in favour of it, but what's wrong with assisting those most in need? Here's a nice table from Wikipedia:

 

[Magicboyd25]

I do believe that government should have a role in helping keep our country successful. Some areas of the gov need a lot of control, others don't. Depends on the areas. For instance as someone who supports climate change reform, I believe our government should do as much as they can to help improve in that area.

[Redael]

I don't see what's so wrong with the redistribution of wealth? Someone going from an income of £150k to £200k will see a lot less of a difference than someone who goes from £50k to £70k, so it's not really some huge issue that we're taxing away some of the cherry on their cake. I am a fan of Welfare states so I'm obviously in favour of it, but what's wrong with assisting those most in need? Here's a nice table from Wikipedia:

With a progressive tax rate rich people notice more of a difference irl, it's just middle-low class people can't sympathize with them beacuse they think everyone who has money works for satan and hates poor people, and they think that a progressive tax system is punishment.

I think its unfair for the rich to recieve millions of Corporate Welfare that is taken from the poor...

Did I say I support corporate welfare, I am against corprate welfare

[Redael]

I do believe that government should have a role in helping keep our country successful. Some areas of the gov need a lot of control, others don't. Depends on the areas. For instance as someone who supports climate change reform, I believe our government should do as much as they can to help improve in that area.

I wish more people had faith in the human race to function without big corrupt government telling everyone what to do. Yes I think the government should encourage alternate energy sources, but when the government tries to fix the economy or really do anything to make the country successful it fails. I believe lassiez-faire is the smartest option for how the government should run

[Magicboyd25]

I wish more people had faith in the human race to function without big corrupt government telling everyone what to do. Yes I think the government should encourage alternate energy sources, but when the government tries to fix the economy or really do anything to make the country successful it fails. I believe lassiez-faire is the smartest option for how the government should run

 

Ya see american nature is to put capital above environmental change in many ways. If the gov doesn't interject there we would have so many issues and we will be seeing a destroyed planet in the future. 

[Tali]

I wish more people had faith in the human race to function without big corrupt government telling everyone what to do. Yes I think the government should encourage alternate energy sources, but when the government tries to fix the economy or really do anything to make the country successful it fails. I believe lassiez-faire is the smartest option for how the government should run

>humanity

>faith

 

 

Ayyy lmao

[WISD0MTREE]

Ya see american nature is to put capital above environmental change in many ways. If the gov doesn't interject there we would have so many issues and we will be seeing a destroyed planet in the future. 

How come we are selling air in bottles to China instead of the other way around? 

 

Because they earn so much money that the fact that they're paying more tax hurts them a lot less than it does for those who make less. See Progressive Taxation.

If they pay 40% more, does that mean they get to use the roads 40% more? 

[Magicboyd25]

How come we are selling air in bottles to China instead of the other way around? 

 

If they pay 40% more, does that mean they get to use the roads 40% more? 

 

I mean if you read up I said there could be a lot of control with Environmental stuff. That could mean more. I do not agree with a lot of the things we do and I do think we need to control a bit more of the things that impact our environment.

 

Could you also provide me an article on the selling air in bottles that you speak of?  

[Rozalia]

I wish more people had faith in the human race to function without big corrupt government telling everyone what to do. Yes I think the government should encourage alternate energy sources, but when the government tries to fix the economy or really do anything to make the country successful it fails. I believe lassiez-faire is the smartest option for how the government should run

 

You know I must wonder if there really is a connection between religion and the free market considering many on the right in America are religious or at least pretend to be. Reason I say this is there seems to be a belief among them that the Free Market Holy Ghost will deliver them into paradise. 

 

What you're asking for is for a state with no regulations, tariffs, or subsidies. No regulations will lead to abuse by corporations. Insufficient tariffs due to the free market religion so many believe in has resulted in the current paradigm of everything going overseas, taking off even more will only enforce that further. No subsidies I assume includes for the poor which has some bad ramifications. 

 

Mainstream Politics of today support just what you support (or mostly at least), they're simply "moderate". Moderate in that they know if they carry out their beliefs in full then it'll mean bad things for a lot of the poor, they don't care for them obviously but when you put people's back's against the wall they will bite back, and that biting back will remove them from their position so they give the little scraps necessary to keep people from rising up against them. 

[durmij]

If they pay 40% more, does that mean they get to use the roads 40% more? 

 

No, but they do get the continuation of a society that lets them live so much better than the majority of humanity even as the distribution of labour piles higher and higher on the back of the working class.

 

Taxes are the small repairs keeping capitalism from collapsing under the weight of wealth accumulation. The small gains of the welfare state over the last 200 ish years are the only reason a good portion of humanity is even alive.

Edited February 4, 2016 by durmij