Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-05-2014, 05:44 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
Quote:Hold on. We're all in agreement they must pay. The question is how do you pay. You say “THUS income tax.” You can't take something we agree on and say THUS something we don't agree on. The whole point of this is o debate that.

Actually I can do whatever the fuck I want.
(within the confines of the law and my own limitations).

Quote:Now, we're getting to the good philosophical part. Classic liberals divide rights between 'negative', meaning the right to be free to leave, free to speak your mind, and free to be left alone if you want. Vs. “positive” rights, which is the right to force other other people to do things you want them to.

Wrong, there is no "this type of right is this type", they're just rights.
We base how we value certain rights over others (ie: a person's right to not be killed is favored over someone's right to not be locked up) on common sense, not "this type of right falls into this category therefore it's less valued than this type of right".

Quote: There is a clear black & white difference.

Which is meaningless because rights are rights and what kind of type they are is entirely irrelevant to anything.

Quote: You just said it is YOUR RIGHT to live in a healthy society. Do gay men have a much higher risk of catching certain diseases, like HIV? Unquestionably. Therefore, based on your assertion of positive rights, you unquestionably have the right to use force against gay men since they are violating your rights.

And this is a classic example of why different types of rights are irrelevant.
Just because they both fall into the same rights category (positive, as you put it) doesn't mean they're both right.
In the example you mentioned, we would use common sense to determine that the gaybo's right of freedom is valued higher than my right to live in a completely healthy society.

An example where my right would trump (to live in a healthy society) would be with vaccination. I have a right to live in a healthy society trumps your right to not have your kid jabbed by a needle.


Category has nothing to do with how we value certain rights over others.
Thus, my right to live in a society that provides for me trumps your right to not get carted off at gunpoint if you don't pay your taxes.

Quote:And when you assert positive rights like you did, there is no logic or reason to say what's a valid positive right and what isn't. So I can draw the line anywhere.

Yes the line shifts, but that's part of being human. How we value certain rights of individuals over other rights is basically our morals and morals in a society change over time.
ie: Slavery
You run into problems when things are set in stone (ie: the bible) and so you need a flexible system that will change as morals within society change.

So yes, there are people out there that believe their right to not be grossed out trumps gay peoples right of freedom. BUT the general consensus (at least here, not so much in 'Murica) is that gay people's right of freedom trumps their right to not be grossed out and as this becomes stronger within society you see change in laws such as same sex marriage.
Flexible.

Quote:You think it's your right to force people to be 'healthy' even if it's against their will

Ok let me just clarify, what I meant by a healthy society was a good healthcare system. I'm not advocating dragging people into hospitals and forcing pills down their throats. I would like to see compulsory vaccination for children though.

And yes, I do believe that the case of compulsory vaccination that my health trumps their right to not be jabbed by a needle. So what?

Quote:For thousands of years, whenever positive rights are allowed, people keep moving the line of what's acceptable more and more and you end up with tyranny.

You also go from a medieval feudal class system to a modern day "everyone has equal rights and votes in their leader" system.

You get more tyranny from a ridged because it has no room to grow.
ie: Religion.
Religion is a rigid system because "the bible says this", there's very little room for flexibility and as such, as society changes it stays outdated.
You need flexibility, it's a good thing.

Quote:Assume I am a religious nut job who thought modern education was bullocks and we should stick to our bibles. Just like you you said you have the right to live in a well educated society, what if I say I have the right to live in uneducated society. If you're right, then if I choose not to college and become well educated, then I have violated your rights, correct? Should I be imprisoned? But if you DO college then you have violated my right to live in an educated society. Can I have you thrown in prison?

This is not done on a small scale, this is societies general consensus.
If you believe you have the right to live in an uneducated society than that's your own damn problem. Society as a whole believes that we should live in a well educated society so your (of living in an uneducated society) opinion is outnumbered and pointless.

And by well educated I mean that there is a good education system.
If you don't become educated yes you are hindering my right to live in a well educated society BUT remember, it's flexible.
We value my right to live in an educated society highly, but if you breach this right than the consequences of doing so are basically nothing.

Yes you breached it, but nobody gives a shit.

It's like stealing. If you stealing 1trillion dollars, that's stealing. You breached someone's right to not have their shit stolen.
If you steal a pencil sharpener, that's stealing. You also breached someone's right to not have their shit stolen.
BUT guess the one that's gonna give you prison time...

Not only do we value certain rights over others, but we value how we punish people who breach those rights differently.

Quote:See you're taking purely subjective opinions that cannot be substantiated with logic and reason and merely asserting them to be true.

Excuse me, I'm the one talking realistically here.
You're taking my points and putting them into completely unrealistic, unrelated scenarios.

And besides, rights and where we draw the line IS subjective opinion.
Regarding income tax, the prevailing opinion is what I said in my other post.

Quote: They're not. They're your opinions.

They're societies opinions.

Quote:All positive rights are opinions. Negative rights, however, age of enlightenment philosophers were able to justify with logic and reason.

Good on them, go ask them for an answer than.
You need rights that are flexible because rights and where we draw the line is basically our morals which are subjective and change over time.
When you get rigid, (like the bible), that's when you run into problems down the track.

Quote:Huh? You think property taxes are not paid on every piece of property, whether you own or rent? If you have a house and rent out 2 rooms, do you get an exemption for those 2 rooms because somebody else lives there? Of course not, you still have to pay, and it gets built into the rent they pay you.

Actually fair point, I never thought about that (despite now being obvious).
I suppose even if you own rental property (and thus not pay property tax on it because it's built into the rent) you still own a house to live in somewhere (or rent). And living in a hotel wouldn't work because that hotel pays tax that you're helping pay.

Consider

Quote:So in the end, the burden is not borne fairly or equally. How is that fair?

Yea actually I see your point about property tax (compared to income tax), at a second glance it does a pair to be a fairer tax system.

Quote: And property taxes CAN be made progressive, based on the value/size of your home.

The issue with that is people (not just rich) will be deterred from buying higher value property.
Actually, come to think of it that's probably not a bad thing. Person debt is a real issue and people do tend to over spend. ie: if you need a 10% deposit and you have $20K people tend to go for the $200K house instead of the $150K house and thus get in more dept so it could help curb the debt problem where as income tax isn't doing anything to help the debt issue.

Consider

I like it.

The only issues I can see with it is that property increases value pretty fast.
ie: In Auckland (our largest city), several years ago the average house cost around $400K, now the average is $700K. Almost double.
People's income doesn't double in that time period, so how do you accommodate for fast rising housing prices while people's income stays relatively the same?
A house someone could afford when they brought it suddenly finds themselves pay 40% MORE in tax.
And so "tax at the rate they paid for it" doesn't work either because if I buy a house in the 1950's it's gonna cost me like $50K which today is a deposit on a house.. and so you're going to be missing out a large chunk of tax revenue. (aka, someone's not paying their share).

Basically, how do you compensate for increasing and decreasing house prices?
Particularly fast growing regions and those that buy just before the house price spikes.

Quote:So in the US, if an American doesn't pay his federal income taxes, he's ostracized as a freeloader, driving on roads and going to schools and not paying for them. Wrong! There are no freeloaders because all those things of value are paid for by property taxes, and everybody pays property taxes. If he doesn't pay his federal income taxes that just means he's not funding a machine that slaughters millions of people in senseless wars to pillage and plunder.

It's like paying 50c of a soft drink and taking the soft drink that costs $3.
Yes, you're a douche and breaching my rights.
Income tax is the system we have at the moment, property MIGHT be better, but it isn't currently implemented and so avoiding income tax is breaching my rights.

Quote:I never said otherwise.

I never said you did, I was just saying.

Quote:I do. And I pay my property taxes willingly because they do good things and it is part of being a good citizen in society. BUT, I only pay federal income taxes because there's a gun pointed to my head. I believe they're immoral, that money goes to fund killing and I'm ashamed to be a part of it.

Cool story bro, suck it up and pay your taxes and stop breaching my rights (even though you're not breaching my personal rights because we live in different countries...). Societies consensus is that income tax is the way to go.
Luckily, where we draw the line is flexible (not if we had it your way though) and so maybe one day property tax will become the primary method of government revenue.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like earmuffs's post
20-05-2014, 06:01 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 04:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 03:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  Wrong. Self-employed people file a Schedule C because being self-employed means you are running a business.

Since you claim it's not a gray area, that you have some black & white distinction, let's see if you're lying: Say I mow one neighbor's lawn in exchange for some service (like tutoring my won). You already said, it's not a business, and not taxable. Now as I start doing this barter with more and more neighbors, ultimately mowing 50 people's lawns and getting all sorts of things through this bartering, what is the formula you use to determine that it has suddenly become a business?

If it is individuals involved, e.g. no plumbers plumbing, no accountants accounting, no lawyers lawyering, then there is no business happening. No taxation.

Quote:
(20-05-2014 03:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  If you just mow people's lawns out of the goodness of your heart or in exchange for them plowing your driveway, you are not engaged in a lawn-mowing business.

Ok, so in addition to bartering lawn mowing for tutoring, you just confirmed bartering for plowing services is also not a taxable business. What formula did you use to determine that bartering for tutoring and plowing services is NOT a taxable business? What about bartering for someone to sew me some clothes? What about providing home-cooked meals? Teeth cleaning? Hair cuts? Please, do tell me what formula you use to decide which of those barters is a harmless private transaction between 2 individuals vs. something else that we are hurting society if we don't pay a 3rd party for the privilege?

If the provider is in the business of providing that service or selling those goods that are being bartered, that is taxable.
This is really simple - why can't you grasp it?
IRS Wrote:Who is Self-Employed?

Generally, you are self-employed if any of the following apply to you.
  • You carry on a trade or business as a sole proprietor or an independent contractor.
  • You are a member of a partnership that carries on a trade or business.
  • You are otherwise in business for yourself (including a part-time business)

Quote:
(20-05-2014 03:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't care about your fucking question, I'm not avoiding it.

Of course you are. I can guarantee 100% that I know you well enough to know that even after you made the absurd claim that the above scenarios are not gray areas and that you have some pragmatic method for determining what's business activity and what's not. So you WILL evade those questions. You will never say 'Ok, you got me. I really don't have a formula for this. It is a subjective gray area.' Nope your only available option is to avoid the question so you can keep telling yourself that you really showed me a thing or two.

Wrong again, bunky.

You reframed your OP to:
Quote:Scenario #1: My neighbor had a heart attack and can't maintain his beloved yard anymore, so I offer to mow his lawn until he gets better.

Q: Does a 3rd party have a right to demand that I report this activity to them? If so, why is it not a private matter between my neighbor and myself?

Q: Should my neighbor or I have to pay a 3rd party for the privilege of helping a neighbor in need?

If not tax law, what in the real world could your questions apply to?
Trying to sanitize it by removing your mistaken understanding of the law renders the questions meaningless - they apply to nothing in the real world.

That is why I'm not going to answer them - they're just fucking stupid.

And your change is dishonest because you don't own up to being wrong about the law and you aren't honest about why you changed the post.

You are a fucking dishonest, lying cunt. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-05-2014, 06:19 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  Bullshit. In the case of malfeasance, the corporate veil can be pierced and the officers, employees, even shareholders can be held accountable, criminally and/or civiily.

Correct, and IF they follow your regulation rules and pay the slap on the wrist fines your regulators impose, like the $30 fine Osha imposed against the fertilizer company for putting the whole town at risk, then the corporate veil remains in tact.

You don't see the conflict of interest here? Corporations are granted immunity from their actions if they follow the regulations. And who writes the regulations? The politicians the corporations fund. When you elect a politician who goes 2,000 miles away to work on regulation which decides what corporation X can get away with and still have immunity, what on earth do you think is going to happen?!?!? Of course corporation X is going to pull out all the stops to buy off the politician, and spend whatever it takes to get a politician elected who will go easy on them. It is SOOOO obvious that this is inevitable.

(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  Laws and regulations are intended to protect decent people from wrong doers.

Again, do you ever say "I'm a wrong doer. These laws protect decent people from ME." NEVER. The laws are ALWAYS intended to reel in somebody ELSE.

In my book it's the opposite. Most people are decent. People who are willing to work really hard and take risks to build a business that creates lots jobs are to be admired. Where things go wrong is when you give politicians such incredible power to pick winners and losers. Politicians have so much power they can even let people get away with murder, like in the fertilizer plant explosion where your beloved politicians created the corporate veil that protects the owners from being held accountable for all the people they killed.

When you give the politicians so much power, it is inevitable they will offer it for sale. After all, if you're a Congressman who is making $174k/year, and you have the power to redistribute trillions of wealth, to pick winners and losers in the free market, isn't it inevitable that you're going to have a corrupt system where those who have the power, money and political connections and are already winners are just to get even more, and the little guy, who has no super-pac, is left out in the cold?

(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  Right. It took unions to make that happen. That is what made the first strides in workplace safety, not employment opportunities.

WTF? They are one and the same. The only reason workers could unionize and threaten to walk out if their working didn't conditions didn't improve is BECAUSE they had other employment opportunities!! If a town had 50% unemployment with hundreds of hungry people fighting for each job the employee would endure any injustice and hazard just to keep his job. The only reason unions formed is because the unregulated economy grew so much so fast that employees could make demands and leave if the company didn't take care of them, and employers had to bend over backwards to keep their employees.

You honestly can't see the connection? You seriously think they'd still have been able to unionize and negotiate better working conditions if they had no employment opportunities?!

(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  And you ignore the repeated recessions that occurred in that time. There were 17 of them between 1850 and 1920, each lasting a year or more.

Yeah, and they all recovered within a couple years. Only after the Federal Reserve was formed and started pumping money into the stock market during the roaring 20's to create a huge bubble, and then did the opposite of what they should have when it crashed, did the country have the worst depression in its entire history with a lost decade of misery. Before you dispute this, remember even the Fed chairman Bernanke conceded Milton Friedman was right and the Fed caused it.

(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are ignoring what conditions those people left. There was opportunity in the U.S., but it wasn't the workers paradise you claim. But it was a whole lot better than no opportunity or pogroms.

I _AM_ looking at the conditions they left. They left places were government played a strong role in the economy, where there were lots of laws and regulations. And, as a result, no opportunity. And they fled in droves to the one place where government focused on defending liberty instead of suppressing it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 06:29 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 06:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 04:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Since you claim it's not a gray area, that you have some black & white distinction, let's see if you're lying: Say I mow one neighbor's lawn in exchange for some service (like tutoring my won). You already said, it's not a business, and not taxable. Now as I start doing this barter with more and more neighbors, ultimately mowing 50 people's lawns and getting all sorts of things through this bartering, what is the formula you use to determine that it has suddenly become a business?

If it is individuals involved, e.g. no plumbers plumbing, no accountants accounting, no lawyers lawyering, then there is no business happening. No taxation.

EXCELLENT proof positive. I challenge you to give me the formula and you make the ludicrous claim that a plumber is not an individual, and then you give me a meaningless circular reference that does NOTHING to clear things up. What is the definition of a plumber? Oh yeah, it's one how does plumbing.

So now you get to have it both ways. If I fix my neighbor's plumbing in a barter and you want to argue that it should be allowed, then you'll see he's an individual--not a plummer. But when you want to get money from him, then suddenly he's no longer an individual, but rather a plummer.

Note how I asked you to give me a SPECIFIC formula to determine when I go from being an individual who just mows other people's lawns in barters (and doesn't pay tax) to a gardener who still just mows other people's lawns in barters and DOES pay tax. What's the formula, please? If I mow 3 lawns/week am I an individual or a gardener? What about 5? 10? What is this magic formula you claim to have that makes it not a gray area? I'm STILL waiting.

(20-05-2014 06:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  That is why I'm not going to answer them - they're just fucking stupid.

Got it. A question that challenges your belief system so that you can't answer it is by its nature fucking stupid. A good question would be something like "Chas, are you a nice person?" _THAT_ question you'd have answered without hesitation!

(20-05-2014 06:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are a fucking dishonest, lying cunt. Drinking Beverage

You see, that actually IS your answer. Every time I ask questions to challenge your beliefs that is the answer I get.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 06:46 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 06:29 PM)frankksj Wrote:  EXCELLENT proof positive. I challenge you to give me the formula and you make the ludicrous claim that a plumber is not an individual, and then you give me a meaningless circular reference that does NOTHING to clear things up. What is the definition of a plumber? Oh yeah, it's one how does plumbing.

Why is it so hard ? , If someone is saving tax by bartering then they are contributing less tax to society then other wise would be if they were paying for the transaction (non commercial transactions are exempt).
the rules as laid out by the IRS are generous enough to allow bartering for up to 100 transactions tax free, and they seem casually enforced at best.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 07:18 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 05:44 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Yea actually I see your point about property tax (compared to income tax), at a second glance it does a pair to be a fairer tax system.

WOW!! That is why I respect you. Open to the idea that maybe there's a better way.

(20-05-2014 05:44 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  The only issues I can see with it is that property increases value pretty fast.

It's a non-issue for 2 reasons. First, generally the reason housing is so expensive is BECAUSE of income taxes. Gains on houses are, in most countries, taxed lightly if at all. Combine that with inflation and there's a strong incentive to buy as much house as you can. If you had an asset-based currency and only property tax, housing prices would be much more affordable and stable. However even if it did double the government would just cut the tax rate in half.

Quote:Societies consensus is that income tax is the way to go. Luckily, where we draw the line is flexible (not if we had it your way though) and so maybe one day property tax will become the primary method of government revenue.

Sadly it won't. See this thread. Most will never even consider it.

Think about this... A billionaire from Monaco can come to New Zealand, buy up all the luxury homes, live the most extravagant lifestyle and use all NZ's roads, courts, etc., and, so long as he spends < 6 months/year in NZ, how much income tax does he pay? ZERO. Not one penny. His maids will pay tax, and he pays none. How is that fair? But that's what you get with income tax because income tax is so difficult to collect. All someone has to do is move their money and tax base overseas and they can live tax free. Lots of rich people are 'permanent tourists' meaning they live in different countries a few month out of the year, but never long enough to be a resident, and so they pay no tax anywhere to any country. In the UK tax residence is based on where you are at midnight each day. So one billionaire famously slept on his private jet and every night it took off at 23:00, flew over international waters, then came back an hour later. And he didn't have to pay any tax. Is that fair? But it's inevitable when you tax income because income is so fungible. Property, however, is not. You can't move a piece of land from NZ to Monaco. So if you want to dodge income tax all you do is need to hire a good accountant. If you want to dodge property tax, it's impossible. You have to get rid of your property and live in a tent somewhere. Why do you think rich people prefer income tax over property tax? With income tax, however, people spend a huge amount of their resources just trying to avoid it. With property tax, however, there's no avoidance.

So why is income tax so sacrosanct for pro-big-government types when they could actually fund their government better and fairer without income tax? I've only found 2 logical reasons: 1) It's just tradition and they've always been told it's good for them and they won't consider change, and 2) Control. With income tax all you have to do to avoid it is simply not report your income. So the only way to enforce it is with absolutely and total control over the people. The government has to monitor your bank account and see where you're spending your money. They have a system where they pay your neighbors rewards to turn you in if you're hiding activity. They have the right to audit you and know every aspect of your private life. And, thanks to Snowden, we now at least in the US, the tax collector secretly reads peoples emails and listens on phone calls to see who's doing something and not reporting it to big brother.

I'm convinced that for government at least it really is about control. If you're a government what kind of tax would you rather collect? One that was unavoidable and required effort? Or one that required you to hunt down people hiding all over the world? There's no logical reason for income tax over property tax except that it gives government huge control over the people.

(20-05-2014 05:44 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  In the example you mentioned, we would use common sense to determine that the gaybo's right of freedom is valued higher than my right to live in a completely healthy society.

Saying “use common sense” is unreliable. Everybody's common sense is different. In some countries they say the right to live in a gay-free society is valued higher than the gaybo's right—so the gaybo ends up hanging from noose in the town center. That's what happens when you don't have rules and logic and just leave it up to everybody's subjective opinion.

Now, I just gave you an example of Saudi Arabia where positive rights were taken to too much of an extreme. Can you give me one example of a country that ever took enforcement of negative rights too far? Since my ideal government is one that blocks all use of force and coercion so that everybody can exercise free will without fear of violence, can you think of one country in all human history that has gone too far with that?

(20-05-2014 05:44 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  So yes, there are people out there that believe their right to not be grossed out trumps gay peoples right of freedom. BUT the general consensus (at least here, not so much in 'Murica) is that gay people's right of freedom trumps their right to not be grossed out and as this becomes stronger within society you see change in laws such as same sex marriage.

Well keep in mind that in the 1980's the US Supreme Court ruled the government should lock up gay people because there was no moral compass to decide right from wrong. It was a matter of opinion which positive rights to assert. Only libertarians who insisted only negative rights had a moral compass that provided the right answer. And it happens with so many other things, like prohibition, the war on drugs, the inquisitions and witch hunts, etc., etc. When you allow positive rights where it's purely subjective what is and isn't allowed, you end up making horrible decisions you look back and regret. Can you ever think of one time that somebody enforced only negative rights and looked back and said it was a mistake?

(20-05-2014 05:44 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  You also go from a medieval feudal class system to a modern day "everyone has equal rights and votes in their leader" system.

Democracy has existed for thousands of years. Enlightenment philosophers were the first to point out that democracy inevitably leads to a tyranny of the majority and decided to switch things around so government defended minorities from the majority, not the other way around. That transformed the world.

(20-05-2014 05:44 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  If you believe you have the right to live in an uneducated society than that's your own damn problem.

Wrong, it's YOUR problem because probably >50% believe they have the right to live in an uneducated society that teaches religion and superstition over science. And when you have a system of 'majority takes all and the minorities can shove it', what happens in countries like Saudi Arabia? It's easy for you as a Kiwi to say majority rules when you live in a country where the majority wants a good education. But what if you were born in a country where the majority taught girls should be killed for learning? Would you still be saying 'majority rules and minorities can shove it'? See, you have a system that only works for you if you're in the majority. I'm advocating a system that works for everybody regardless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 07:29 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 06:19 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  Bullshit. In the case of malfeasance, the corporate veil can be pierced and the officers, employees, even shareholders can be held accountable, criminally and/or civiily.

Correct, and IF they follow your regulation rules and pay the slap on the wrist fines your regulators impose, like the $30 fine Osha imposed against the fertilizer company for putting the whole town at risk, then the corporate veil remains in tact.

You don't see the conflict of interest here? Corporations are granted immunity from their actions if they follow the regulations. And who writes the regulations? The politicians the corporations fund. When you elect a politician who goes 2,000 miles away to work on regulation which decides what corporation X can get away with and still have immunity, what on earth do you think is going to happen?!?!? Of course corporation X is going to pull out all the stops to buy off the politician, and spend whatever it takes to get a politician elected who will go easy on them. It is SOOOO obvious that this is inevitable.

Are you so blinded by ideology that reason has escaped you? Once the corporate veil is dropped by the court, it is no longer 'regulators' that have anything to say it is the courts.

Quote:
(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  Laws and regulations are intended to protect decent people from wrong doers.

Again, do you ever say "I'm a wrong doer. These laws protect decent people from ME." NEVER. The laws are ALWAYS intended to reel in somebody ELSE.

The laws apply to everyone, you daft fucking cunt.

Quote:In my book it's the opposite.

The opposite of what? You once again make shit up. Do you hear voices saying these things?

Quote:Most people are decent. People who are willing to work really hard and take risks to build a business that creates lots jobs are to be admired. Where things go wrong is when you give politicians such incredible power to pick winners and losers. Politicians have so much power they can even let people get away with murder, like in the fertilizer plant explosion where your beloved politicians created the corporate veil that protects the owners from being held accountable for all the people they killed.


Now you've gone completely over the edge. You are utterly mischaracterizing that disaster. Your view of the world is bizarre, to say the least.

Quote:When you give the politicians so much power, it is inevitable they will offer it for sale. After all, if you're a Congressman who is making $174k/year, and you have the power to redistribute trillions of wealth, to pick winners and losers in the free market, isn't it inevitable that you're going to have a corrupt system where those who have the power, money and political connections and are already winners are just to get even more, and the little guy, who has no super-pac, is left out in the cold?

And this has what to do with the discussion, other than your mad ravings?

Quote:
(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  Right. It took unions to make that happen. That is what made the first strides in workplace safety, not employment opportunities.

WTF? They are one and the same. The only reason workers could unionize and threaten to walk out if their working didn't conditions didn't improve is BECAUSE they had other employment opportunities!! If a town had 50% unemployment with hundreds of hungry people fighting for each job the employee would endure any injustice and hazard just to keep his job. The only reason unions formed is because the unregulated economy grew so much so fast that employees could make demands and leave if the company didn't take care of them, and employers had to bend over backwards to keep their employees.
You honestly can't see the connection? You seriously think they'd still have been able to unionize and negotiate better working conditions if they had no employment opportunities?!

Your ignorance is astounding. Workers rarely had any place to go.

I suggest you read an actual history book, not some tract from your crazy libertarian sources.

Quote:
(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  And you ignore the repeated recessions that occurred in that time. There were 17 of them between 1850 and 1920, each lasting a year or more.

Yeah, and they all recovered within a couple years. Only after the Federal Reserve was formed and started pumping money into the stock market during the roaring 20's to create a huge bubble, and then did the opposite of what they should have when it crashed, did the country have the worst depression in its entire history with a lost decade of misery. Before you dispute this, remember even the Fed chairman Bernanke conceded Milton Friedman was right and the Fed caused it.

Some of them lasted 3, 4, or 5 years.

Seriously, you should check sources before making easily refuted assertions.
But you never learn, do you.

Quote:
(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are ignoring what conditions those people left. There was opportunity in the U.S., but it wasn't the workers paradise you claim. But it was a whole lot better than no opportunity or pogroms.

I _AM_ looking at the conditions they left. They left places were government played a strong role in the economy, where there were lots of laws and regulations. And, as a result, no opportunity. And they fled in droves to the one place where government focused on defending liberty instead of suppressing it.

No, you're not. It wasn't 'the economy', it was the social immobility, repression, religion, and more. Things are rarely as simple as you seem to think,


[Image: filthyracistcuntanncoulter.jpg]

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-05-2014, 07:40 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 06:29 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 06:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  If it is individuals involved, e.g. no plumbers plumbing, no accountants accounting, no lawyers lawyering, then there is no business happening. No taxation.

EXCELLENT proof positive. I challenge you to give me the formula and you make the ludicrous claim that a plumber is not an individual, and then you give me a meaningless circular reference that does NOTHING to clear things up. What is the definition of a plumber? Oh yeah, it's one how does plumbing.

So now you get to have it both ways. If I fix my neighbor's plumbing in a barter and you want to argue that it should be allowed, then you'll see he's an individual--not a plummer. But when you want to get money from him, then suddenly he's no longer an individual, but rather a plummer.

Note how I asked you to give me a SPECIFIC formula to determine when I go from being an individual who just mows other people's lawns in barters (and doesn't pay tax) to a gardener who still just mows other people's lawns in barters and DOES pay tax. What's the formula, please? If I mow 3 lawns/week am I an individual or a gardener? What about 5? 10? What is this magic formula you claim to have that makes it not a gray area? I'm STILL waiting.

Your inability to understand simple declarative sentences is astounding.

Try reading it again. A plumber is one who has a plumbing business.
I gave you the specific formula, you are just too blind to see it.

Your preconceived, inflexible, simplistic, childish world view gets in the way of understanding and reason.

Quote:
(20-05-2014 06:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  That is why I'm not going to answer them - they're just fucking stupid.

Got it. A question that challenges your belief system so that you can't answer it is by its nature fucking stupid. A good question would be something like "Chas, are you a nice person?" _THAT_ question you'd have answered without hesitation!

(20-05-2014 06:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are a fucking dishonest, lying cunt. Drinking Beverage

You see, that actually IS your answer. Every time I ask questions to challenge your beliefs that is the answer I get.

No, these are not my beliefs - we actually haven't discussed those.

This is a discussion about facts. You didn't realize that because you are rarely acquainted with them.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-05-2014, 07:45 PM
Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
[Image: crazycat.gif]

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
20-05-2014, 08:23 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 07:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  Once the corporate veil is dropped by the court, it is no longer 'regulators' that have anything to say it is the courts.

WTF? But the courts cannot just arbitrarily drop the corporate veil. There are strict rules. If the owners follow the rules (ie the regulations) then the court CANNOT pierce the corporate veil. So, YES, it _IS_ your beloved regulations that grant today's 'robber barons' immunity from prosecution.

It's ridiculous to say that once the corporate veil is dropped the regulations don't apply, knowing fully that it's those regulations that determine when the corporate veil can be dropped.

(20-05-2014 07:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your ignorance is astounding. Workers rarely had any place to go.

You mean "psychically" no where to go, because they were held in bondage as slaves? Or nowhere to go because nobody else was offering them a better job? Workers conditions could only improve when workers DID have another place to go, and that only happens when you have a business-friendly climate that needs workers.

Again, you're using ridiculous circular references. I say that full employment created the environment for improved working conditions. You say 'no' the fact that they had other job opportunities is what improved their working conditions. They are the same thing.

(20-05-2014 07:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, you're not. It wasn't 'the economy', it was the social immobility, repression, religion, and more.

That's pathetic. Social mobility only happens when you have a thriving business-friendly climate. How much social mobility was there in state-run economies, like the Soviet Union? And what about highly progressive income taxes, like what if all income over the poverty line is taxed at 99%? Those things make social mobility impossible. As far as repression and religion, YES, that is exactly what I'm talking about. Those other countries had governments that initiated force upon the citizens repressively enforcing the will of the religious majority on all minorities. Only the libertarian countries that flipped it around and defended minorities from the majority experienced the surge.

I agree with you on Ann Coulter. But you understand she is on YOUR side of the debate, right?

I'm arguing for negative rights. Both you and Coulter for positive.

I'm arguing government should defend minorities from the majority. Both you and Coulter argue the opposite.

I'm arguing that every individual has the right to liberty, to make his own decisions of his own free will, without threats of violence or coercion. You and Coulter both fight this.

We could go on and list everything that I disagree with you on, and in every case, Ann Coulter is on YOUR side of the issue. So you are going to tell me she must not be so crazy after all?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: