US Politics VIII

[anitram]

If it makes you feel better, truly rich people hire people to help them avoid paying taxes altogether.

As they say, tax avoidance is not tax evasion.

You don't even have to be super rich to have tax structuring in place. It's fairly common among the professional upper middle class of a certain rung.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I appreciate you actually acknowledging a need for a safety net and ditching the garbage “taxes are theft”.

I appreciate your charity and the fact that you do as much as you can, I truly do.

But charity will never be able to help the systematic poor or unhealthy. Period.

Charity doesn’t have the capabilities to consistently provide, charity will always ebb and flow according to their donations and need.

Charity is limiting not only due to fluctuations of money, but also due to lack of systems.

I have so much more, but have to run, I look forward to your responses.

"I appreciate you actually acknowledging a need for a safety net and ditching the garbage “taxes are theft”."

I don't think it's much of. concession to acknowledge the need for a safety net, vague as the verbiage is. It's a rather universally accepted premise. The question becomes a matter of methodology and ethics.

"The garbage 'taxation is theft...'"

Yet, we would never accept such coercive means of wealth accumulation from any other institution in society. It certainly shares more features with white collar theft than a private charity in this respect.


"But charity will never be able to help the systematic poor or unhealthy. Period."

...With private initiative crowded out by the popular assumption that the state will provide services X, Y, and Z. However, mutual aid has a significant history that preexisted the modern welfare state.


"Mutual aid was particularly popular among the poor and the working class. For instance, in New York City in 1909 40 percent of families earning less than $1,000 a year, little more than the "living wage," had members who were in mutual-aid societies... By the 1920s, at least one out of every three males was a member of a mutual-aid society."

https://mises.org/library/welfare-welfare-state

And Britain...

"[T]here are very few welfare roles now carried out by the British state that were not pioneered in the voluntary sector which, by the 19th century, had become huge and diverse. There were charities for the relief of poverty, the treatment of the sick, the housing of the working classes, the education of poor children, the assistance of the disabled, the training of the unemployed, and so on."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1435374/There-was-welfare-before-the-welfare-state.html


"Charity doesn’t have the capabilities to consistently provide, charity will always ebb and flow according to their donations and need."

As opposed to a nation-state that generates trillions of dollars of debt to be dumped on the next generation?

"Charity is limiting not only due to fluctuations of money, but also due to lack of systems."

In the present system, yes, there may be a "lack of systems" - But historically as presented above, that hasn't always been the case.

 

[BVS]

"I appreciate you actually acknowledging a need for a safety net and ditching the garbage “taxes are theft”."

I don't think it's much of. concession to acknowledge the need for a safety net, vague as the verbiage is. It's a rather universally accepted premise. The question becomes a matter of methodology and ethics.

You would think, right? But some have stated it's theft and no one is entitled to his money.

In the present system, yes, there may be a "lack of systems" - But historically as presented above, that hasn't always been the case.

Yes, but could it happen in 2018? Do you really think there's a way that those who can't afford healthcare to be taken care of by charity?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

You would think, right? But some have stated it's theft and no one is entitled to his money.



Yes, but could it happen in 2018? Do you really think there's a way that those who can't afford healthcare to be taken care of by charity?

"You would think, right? But some have stated it's theft and no one is entitled to his money."

I would say that if it isn't theft, it certainly resembles it (more so than voluntary private charity). I used the term "white collar theft" so as not to confuse with a wacko holding you up to initiate an altercation you didn't expect.

In any case, ultimately incompatible with the Lockean-Jeffersonian notion of legitimate governance deriving from consent.


"Yes, but could it happen in 2018? Do you really think there's a way that those who can't afford healthcare to be taken care of by charity?"

There once existed a culture within medical providers to discount or serve free of charge those who couldn't afford the services needed. Some communities would ostracize you if you were a doctor who didn't do so. You can't reclaim that overnight. And a lot to roll back with regard to the Big Pharm-Big State alliance, and with the costs of complying with mandates, insurance, paperwork, etc.

 

[DaveC]

if you intend to address a certain part of a person's post you can break up the quote function rather than quoting the entire post and then copy-pasting it in bit by bit, FYI.

"You would think, right? But some have stated it's theft and no one is entitled to his money."

like this.

I would say that if it isn't theft, it certainly resembles it (more so than voluntary private charity). I used the term "white collar theft" so as not to confuse with a wacko holding you up to initiate an altercation you didn't expect.

you just need to type the [ quote] [ /quote] tags (without the space) around the beginning and end of each part you want to quote individually.

In any case, ultimately incompatible with the Lockean-Jeffersonian notion of legitimate governance deriving from consent.

not saying this to sound like a jerk, it just seems like you might not know about this function and trying to help out as sometimes when you double-quote an especially long post it has the effect of making your post even longer when it doesn't need to be, and that makes it so that we have to needlessly scroll a lot more to read thru your posts. hope this helps.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

if you intend to address a certain part of a person's post you can break up the quote function rather than quoting the entire post and then copy-pasting it in bit by bit, FYI.



like this.



you just need to type the [ quote] [ /quote] tags (without the space) around the beginning and end of each part you want to quote individually.



not saying this to sound like a jerk, it just seems like you might not know about this function and trying to help out as sometimes when you double-quote an especially long post it has the effect of making your post even longer when it doesn't need to be, and that makes it so that we have to needlessly scroll a lot more to read thru your posts. hope this helps.

Will keep in mind. Thanks.

 

[Gzusfrk]

You would think, right? But some have stated it's theft and no one is entitled to his money.



Yes, but could it happen in 2018? Do you really think there's a way that those who can't afford healthcare to be taken care of by charity?

BVS, besides your platitudes that it's "garbage", explain to me your rationale. Before 1913, the United States had no income tax. We still had roads, schools, etc.

Explain to me how "property taxes" are not government theft. You can own your property, but never REALLY own it. A bit Orwellian, wouldn't you say? Explain how "capital gains" taxes are not theft. We will "punish" you for having assets by forcing you to give some of it to "us" by taxing you again! How are "estate, or death taxes" not theft? You died, and want to pass on money to your heirs, we will will tax that money AGAIN!

Now I know this is the liberal form of government you want, BVS, and I have no assets, or wealth, so YOUR ideas would benefit me more, but I find them to be theft by government, yes. And completely against what out Founding Fathers wanted the Federal Government to be controlling.

And all of these arguments about "charity not providing enough" of a safety net, prove two things. In your opinion, rich liberals, or "elites" as we say, would not be as generous as their bleeding hearts would have us believe, or that, like I've said before , it's easy to spend other people's money. So most people who are pro BIG government, or pro socialism will hardly contribute anything at all through taxes, or FORCED compassion or giving.

That's not compassion, that's the definition or mindless virtue signaling to make yourself LOOK compassionate.

 

[BVS]

"You would think, right? But some have stated it's theft and no one is entitled to his money."

I would say that if it isn't theft, it certainly resembles it (more so than voluntary private charity). I used the term "white collar theft" so as not to confuse with a wacko holding you up to initiate an altercation you didn't expect.

In any case, ultimately incompatible with the Lockean-Jeffersonian notion of legitimate governance deriving from consent.

So I’m curious, then what wouldn’t be theft? No governance and no taxes, or taxes but they have to ask you about every road they build and every fire they put out?

There once existed a culture within medical providers to discount or serve free of charge those who couldn't afford the services needed. Some communities would ostracize you if you were a doctor who didn't do so. You can't reclaim that overnight. And a lot to roll back with regard to the Big Pharm-Big State alliance, and with the costs of complying with mandates, insurance, paperwork, etc.

There once also lived cultures where the men went out to hunt, women cooked, and they all chipped in and helped each other build their shelters.

 

[Danny Boy]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...-a-social-safety-net-built-on-charity/284552/

 

[DaveC]

That's not compassion, that's the definition or mindless virtue signaling to make yourself LOOK compassionate.

says the person who insists on reminding strangers on the internet over and over again about how generously they give to charity despite never once having been asked.

 

[Danny Boy]

says the person who insists on reminding strangers on the internet over and over again about how generously they give to charity despite never once having been asked.

Hey, I think Jesus even had something to say about that.

Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

 

[BVS]

BVS, besides your platitudes that it's "garbage", explain to me your rationale. Before 1913, the United States had no income tax. We still had roads, schools, etc.

Explain to me how "property taxes" are not government theft. You can own your property, but never REALLY own it. A bit Orwellian, wouldn't you say? Explain how "capital gains" taxes are not theft. We will "punish" you for having assets by forcing you to give some of it to "us" by taxing you again! How are "estate, or death taxes" not theft? You died, and want to pass on money to your heirs, we will will tax that money AGAIN!

But we had taxes prior to 1913. And 1913 was reimposing of previous taxes.

So did you think those roads were built by magic, or do you think just some taxes are theft?

I agree some taxes are ridiculous and wish for true reform.

But you should really learn what your property taxes are for [emoji23]

Now I know this is the liberal form of government you want, BVS, and I have no assets, or wealth, so YOUR ideas would benefit me more, but I find them to be theft by government, yes. And completely against what out Founding Fathers wanted the Federal Government to be controlling.

And all of these arguments about "charity not providing enough" of a safety net, prove two things. In your opinion, rich liberals, or "elites" as we say, would not be as generous as their bleeding hearts would have us believe, or that, like I've said before , it's easy to spend other people's money. So most people who are pro BIG government, or pro socialism will hardly contribute anything at all through taxes, or FORCED compassion or giving.

That's not compassion, that's the definition or mindless virtue signaling to make yourself LOOK compassionate.

Is this how you talk in real life?

State something, cram a bunch of words in the other persons’ mouth, state something, cram a bunch of words in the other persons’ mouth, rinse and repeat

So if those liberals were really as generous as they pretend how would charity be able to provide healthcare for all of those that truly can’t provide?

 

[DaveC]

those liberal doctors would work completely for free, of course. if they didn't, any expression of compassion or empathy for a fellow human being would automatically be just mindless virtue signaling. because obviously only christian conservatives have actual compassion and are capable of performing true acts of charity, after all.

 

[BVS]

those liberal doctors would work completely for free, of course. if they didn't, any expression of compassion or empathy for a fellow human being would automatically be just mindless virtue signaling. because obviously only christian conservatives have actual compassion and are capable of performing true acts of charity, after all.

I think there was a study about that.

 

[mama cass]

i mean, Jesus even paid taxes

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I wish it was 1912 again. This country sucks now. Back in 1912 was when it was the best.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Re: BVS

So I’m curious, then what wouldn’t be theft? No governance and no taxes, or taxes but they have to ask you about every road they build and every fire they put out?

Under a "public option" (should you see a state-run service as best fit for these), voluntary taxation, endowments/donations, lottery ticket sales, and the like come to mind in order to fund what people are actually willing to pay for. Obviously, roads and firefighting make the list.

There is also contractual law that can fill the "no governance" void with enforceable terms, prearranged. Governance it is, just not by "government" as an institution with a monopoly privilege on coercion.

Private roads were actually a major industry in the 19th century. With today's technology, there's a lot of potential to innovate in this area of life. Instead of Congress and local governments fighting over whether to fix Road X or build Road Y to tease up more support for legislation, private competitors can fight for your business, and you end up not footing the roads in states you don't live in.

Firefighting would be prearranged under such a model, as part of a package deal (along with security/protection, sewer, gas, water, etc) in proprietary communities. Developers would use the block as fraternal purchasing power to gain the best deals they can. As opposed to state monopoly in such areas.

There once also lived cultures where the men went out to hunt, women cooked, and they all chipped in and helped each other build their shelters.

Hunter-gatherer stuff. The Pre-political state.

Nothing wrong with thinking POST-political, and learning from the past.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

those liberal doctors would work completely for free, of course. if they didn't, any expression of compassion or empathy for a fellow human being would automatically be just mindless virtue signaling. because obviously only christian conservatives have actual compassion and are capable of performing true acts of charity, after all.

Witty man, LOL.

Even I think the virtue signaling charge gets a bit out of hand (though I also understand the irritation with "Hey, look how PC I can be!")

 

[DaveC]

[tweet]1016077262980960256[/tweet]

 

[Bluer White]

Look, the irony of it is that I do think that my tax rate is too high, not because I am opposed to a social safety net but because I believe the bureaucracy is bloated, the public sector here is unrealistic in the long term (almost all job growth is in the public sector which is unsustainable and terrible for our economy in the long run, they need to get rid of defined benefit pensions because those are enormous liabilities imposed on society and plain irresponsible). Our highest marginal rate keeps getting higher and far left politicians run on "well you earn that much you can afford to pay a bit more." To what end? You can only squeeze the top 1, 2, 3% so much before they take their money elsewhere. Also bad for society.

^ Agreed. The realistic argument isn't about whether taxes in general are theft, or even if a progressive tax system is fair. Canada and America are beyond those questions.

The real fights are the rate levels, and where the tax revenue is actually going. Those are good fights to have.

 

[BVS]

^ Agreed. The realistic argument isn't about whether taxes in general are theft, or even if a progressive tax system is fair. Canada and America are beyond those questions.



The real fights are the rate levels, and where the tax revenue is actually going. Those are good fights to have.

This I can agree with [emoji106]

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I wish it was 1912 again. This country sucks now. Back in 1912 was when it was the best.

Well Trump wasn't President then so bonus points for that.

 

[dazzledbylight]

Bingo.

The Republicans jumped on board for Trump even though most knew they shouldn't. They are all in at any cost, even to a fault - and they're setting up to reverse decades of progress because of this. The country is primed to move right (even though the majority want it to move left - thanks founding fathers!) and stay right for the foreseeable future.

This could have horrifying ramifications for everyone who isn't a straight white person of upper middle class stature or above.

Meanwhile the Democrats just keep bickering over how far to the left you are.

Anyone who's outraged by this president needs to unite and elect Democrats and independents en masse this November - whether or not they're a socialist or a DINO.

I don't agree with everything Oscaio-Cortez stands for. But if I was still in NYC and she was in my district you're god damn right I'd be voting for her.

I sure as shit don't agree with Joe Donnelly either, but if he were the candidate in blue in my district, yea - he gets my vote.

You need to take Congress back by any means necessary if you want to get the country headed back to the left again, and then you need to hold on to it.

You need to fight like hell to reverse the effects of gerrymandering, and to keep majority controll through 2020, so that we can clean up this mess, restore our standing internationally, and hopefully salvage what's left of the supreme court.

And fuck they go low we go high - we need to fight dirty and use the same tactics that set us on this course in the first place.

Otherwise we are truly and wholly fucked.

Fecking THIS!!!

We can't do anything or that much UNLESS we get the The House back, and The Senate IF we can this year!

And I sure as hell voted in 2010!
Not sure yet how I will participate in Get Out And he Vote this year, but I will; as I have in different ways before in years, and decades past!

While some of our differences are not so small - they're a hell of a lot LESS defferent than what most Republicans, Conservatives, White Supremacists, and Neo-Nazis believe!!!

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Well Trump wasn't President then so bonus points for that.

I wouldn't have cared for TR or Woodrow Wilson. Were they really any better?

 

[DaveC]

oh that's right you guys, we forgot about that time woodrow wilson bragged about how easy it was for him to sexually assault women, and all the praise theodore roosevelt heaped on foreign enemy dictators. i guess they're all the same.

 

[Gzusfrk]

says the person who insists on reminding strangers on the internet over and over again about how generously they give to charity despite never once having been asked.

You sir, have a strange way of misquoting, number one, making blatant exaggerated statements, two, seem to have lots of trouble with dissenting opinions.

I mentioned one time that I give charitably, and I must have really struck a nerve with you (and others) about giving and compassion.

I won't ask how much you pay in taxes because I don't care, but many liberals here are scared to death of the possibility that people who need help could be helped by charity rather than the government. Which again, takes the onus off of most people who typically scream for socialism or more and more free stuff.

Many of you say it won't be enough money, because you don't trust people to give out of their own money??

I never said Christian conservatives are the only ones who give to charity, but some facts, and I know that word bothers you as well:

More conservatives give to and volunteer for charity

If you look at all the homeless shelters, orphanages, food banks and pantries in America, most are run by Christian churches or Christian organizations. Sorry.

 

[Gzusfrk]

I wish it was 1912 again. This country sucks now. Back in 1912 was when it was the best.

Once again, deflecting. This is why it's nearly impossible to have a mature discussion with leftists on this forum, because like this comment, you think some snarky, "smartest guy in the room" comment furthers the discussion.

The point is, the whole idea "well we will have nothing if we don't have all these taxes" proves you have drank the Kool Aid and never gave a second thought about it.

Don't research the history of the income tax, and all these other taxes we HAVE to pay and prove we are "loving compassionate people", no skin off my nose.

Why are you all so against having MORE of the money YOU earn given back to you by the Almighty Government. Then you can give to everyone and every organization you want!

Problem is, sounds like most of don't trust yourselves to do it, so you have to be forced by taxes. Sounds real "loving and compassionate" to me.

 

[Gzusfrk]

I'd love to hear how many of you who speak so bravely about socialism and BIG government being the "answer" and "wave of the future" would be honest enough to tell us that YOU yourself would benefit from "income redistribution" or "government aid".

I myself, would probably benefit from it, but I think it's wrong and immoral. Like I told anitram, who was brave enough to share her income status, I don't think ANYONE is entitled to her money. She has earned it, was given it, whatever. It doesn't matter.

Those who think "it's not fair" are greedy and jealous. Sorry, life's not always fair. We ALL have equal opportunities to succeed (though some of you STILL think you can't if you're not a white male, which is completely proven false), but you want equal results. That's ridiculous, IMO.

 

[DaveC]

I never said Christian conservatives are the only ones who give to charity, but some facts, and I know that word bothers you as well:

More conservatives give to and volunteer for charity

If you look at all the homeless shelters, orphanages, food banks and pantries in America, most are run by Christian churches or Christian organizations. Sorry.

do you have anything in terms of statistics or sources (you know, "facts") that actualy backs any of this up or are we supposed to just take your word for it

This is why it's nearly impossible to have a mature discussion with leftists on this forum, because like this comment, you think some snarky, "smartest guy in the room" comment furthers the discussion.

i've tried to have a "mature discussion" with you like ten times dude and you've always ignored my posts. literally every single time. so don't whine and play the victim card like you're the only one trying to actually engage here. i'm getting pretty sick of you coming in here and acting like we're all being dishonest and shady because we're not posting in the exact way about the exact things that you arbitrarily decided that we should.

 

[DaveC]

I'd love to hear how many of you who speak so bravely about socialism and BIG government being the "answer" and "wave of the future" would be honest enough to tell us that YOU yourself would benefit from "income redistribution" or "government aid".

I myself, would probably benefit from it, but I think it's wrong and immoral. Like I told anitram, who was brave enough to share her income status, I don't think ANYONE is entitled to her money. She has earned it, was given it, whatever. It doesn't matter.

Those who think "it's not fair" are greedy and jealous. Sorry, life's not always fair. We ALL have equal opportunities to succeed (though some of you STILL think you can't if you're not a white male, which is completely proven false), but you want equal results. That's ridiculous, IMO.

this is the shit i'm talking about.

all of these things have been said to you. repeatedly. by multiple people. this "everyone has equal opportunities" nonsense has specifically been refuted several times. YOU have chosen to ignore the responses in favour of yelling at strawmen and putting words in our mouths. you are being dishonest and that is YOUR fault.

take some fucking responsibility for once like you keep saying we "leftists" all need to do, don't be so damn lazy and actually take the effort to thoughtfully reply to the actual words in the posts that are in response to what you say.