If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Foreign Policy)   Governor Barbour to French millionaires: if you want to avoid all those new taxes your new President is proposing, why not move to Mississippi? No, I'm serious. Stop laughing   (foreignpolicy.com) divider line 397
    More: Silly, Mississippi, Qui veut gagner des millions ?, capital gains taxes, sustainable level, French citizens, wealth tax, income taxes, political base  
•       •       •

1978 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Aug 2012 at 3:10 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



397 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-09 11:18:35 AM

walkingtall: "In 1848 Marx and Engels proposed that progressive taxation be used to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeois, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state. Although communism has failed, the idea of progressive taxation as a means of achieving social justice endures."

Yes it is a socialist idea. Granted the source of that quote is biased but the idea of a progressive tax is socialist. Others may agree with it but it is definitely a socialist tool.


"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

- Adam Smith, from An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, originally published in 1776

The progressive tax is a capitalist idea as it was formed by the intellectual godfather of capitalism 42 years before Karl Marx was born and 44 years before Friedrich Engels was born.
 
2012-08-09 11:18:50 AM

Epoch_Zero: Still waiting for those citations that prove your asinine assertions as truth, walkingtall.


But socialism bad is one of the immutable truths of the world, like fire hot, sky blue, water wet, and lemonade good.

Honestly though, the opposition to socialism seems to be rooted in the desire to be able to, to have the 'freedom', to buy anything, up to and including people. It doesn't matter that buying a person would be limiting that person's freedom, because presumably if they wanted to exercise their freedom to buy, they would have worked harder.
Townspeople complaining that your factory ruined the water supply? Buy the town. Kick out the people. Buy the people, force'em to drink the bad water. If the town wants clean water so badly, they should buy it themselves.

And the non 1% think they're not going to be the ones sold at auction, and it will instead be their lessers, be they a race, a religion, or a liberal arts major.
 
2012-08-09 11:22:11 AM

walkingtall: And yes the state can come in and kick you off your land you have completely paid for when you owe and amount of back property taxes.


You're welcome to leave civilization anytime you want. We won't stop you. Or you can wake up and realize you don't live in a vacuum, and that you're not allowed to profit from the rest of our society for free.
 
2012-08-09 11:23:11 AM
But socialism bad is one of the immutable truths of the world, like fire hot, sky blue, water wet, and lemonade good.

Honestly though, the opposition to socialism seems to be rooted in the desire to be able to, to have the 'freedom', to buy anything, up to and including people. It doesn't matter that buying a person would be limiting that person's freedom, because presumably if they wanted to exercise their freedom to buy, they would have worked harder.
Townspeople complaining that your factory ruined the water supply? Buy the town. Kick out the people. Buy the people, force'em to drink the bad water. If the town wants clean water so badly, they should buy it themselves.

And the non 1% think they're not going to be the ones sold at auction, and it will instead be their lessers, be they a race, a religion, or a liberal arts major.




Well there is one glaring example of someone directly advocating the virtues of socialism. Doing it by the usual tactics also. Socialists are for people having clean drinking water and food and the opposition being directly opposed to those things. It is like a class on how NOT to debate intelligently.
 
2012-08-09 11:23:22 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: way south: Money not collected in fuel tax, if I recall.
So we were paying.

But I look at it this way: you dont profit from eating the cheese in your mousetrap.
The owners were willing to put up with US laws, and spend here, because it was cheaper to tank here.
What was lost in fuel tax was regained whenever some guy bought overpriced jewlery for his mistress in a waterfront store.

When that enticement wasn't here, they would flag out of places like Panama or St Maarten. The regulations are more relaxed and the labor costs are lower.

So you are in favor of direct taxpayer subsidies to the wealthy, including non-citizens. How do you feel about direct taxpayer subsidies to poor and middle class American citizens?


In this example: It was direct in as much as you needed to own a ship, because those behind the benefit realized that a ship can bring you work.
I see a tax break for the poor as being its own issue. Them not having to paying tax is great, as is a subsidy for training, but you still need employment outside of the government. No employ means no money.
This brings us back to enticing the rich man into our harbor.

Selling things to people with money is what capitalism is about.
If the the governor has to lie, steal, or cheat to get us more customers... I can't say I'm opposed to that.
 
2012-08-09 11:23:55 AM

walkingtall: Epoch_Zero: Land ownership isn't a right, you complete moron.

Good grief. All the strawmen. It is like a Wizard of Oz cosplay convention in here.I never said being able to own land is a right. Freedom from state interference in your ownership once you own land IS a right. It is a right we have lost.

And yes the state can come in and kick you off your land you have completely paid for when you owe and amount of back property taxes. Forcibly remove you at gunpoint from your home for owing just a few dollars in taxes. It happens every single day. That should be be able to happen. Tax lien I can see where when you sell your house you have to pay your taxes or your children after you die etc. We have gone WAY too far in how easily we let the govt take our land and homes from us whenever they feel like it. Do you really not see a problem with this?


break a deal, spin the wheel.

if it is a few dollars in taxes and you completely paid for the property, you can probably get a mortgage.
 
2012-08-09 11:24:59 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Wendy's Chili: walkingtall: False premise. They don't create jobs.

How do you figure? I have never gotten a job from anyone that didnt have a significant amount of either wealth or income. These measure penalize people with wealth and income. Not sure how you disconnect the two.

Let's say you work at a restaurant. It's the demand for food that creates your job, not the owner's bank account.

The people who buy the food are paying for your services.

How did they get the money to pay for those services?

Of course people spending money is required for an economy. The people who took some risk and were paying people to do a job with the hope that they will get more money in return is a huge factor in how the flywheel gets started and spins faster.


Christ. I guess I have to break it down even further.

In the beginning men hunted animals and gathered berries, then they began cultivating land and raising their own animals...

Work. Work is what creates wealth. Work is what creates capital. There's a lot of legacy capital hanging around these days, but all of it, at one time, was created by work. Even before the time of employers. No exceptions.

I'm not against capitalism. I'm very pro-capitalism and even pro-big business. I just reject the Republican claims that jobs cannot exist without the wealthy, that raising taxes to pay for national improvements is bad for the economy, and that tax rates favoring the wealthy create more demand for work than tax rates favoring the middle and lower classes.
 
2012-08-09 11:25:00 AM
You're welcome to leave civilization anytime you want. We won't stop you. Or you can wake up and realize you don't live in a vacuum, and that you're not allowed to profit from the rest of our society for free.

Kicking someone off their land and taking their house for 50 dollars of back taxes is just necessary to live in our society? Really you believe that? This discussion is making my opinion of fark lower and lower the more I realize the kinds of things people like you actually advocate.
 
2012-08-09 11:26:30 AM

walkingtall: It is like a class on how NOT to debate intelligently.


I learned it from watching you.
 
2012-08-09 11:26:32 AM

walkingtall: Socialists are for people having clean drinking water and food and the opposition being directly opposed to those things. It is like a class on how NOT to debate intelligently.


What an absurd caricature.

Most normal people recognize the overall benefit of a society having access to clean drinking water and food that won't make them sick. You, apparently, do not, or feel that everyone should be individually responsible for acquiring their own clean water.

As we all know, if one person gets sick from drinking dirty water or eating contaminated food, the disease can never spread to the rest of the populace.
 
2012-08-09 11:27:34 AM

walkingtall: You're welcome to leave civilization anytime you want. We won't stop you. Or you can wake up and realize you don't live in a vacuum, and that you're not allowed to profit from the rest of our society for free.

Kicking someone off their land and taking their house for 50 dollars of back taxes is just necessary to live in our society? Really you believe that? This discussion is making my opinion of fark lower and lower the more I realize the kinds of things people like you actually advocate.


Can you provide any citations of anyone being evicted, with no warning or opportunity to rectify the situation, for owing $50 in back taxes?
 
2012-08-09 11:27:51 AM

Serious Black: It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

- Adam Smith, from An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, originally published in 1776



Uh, they do contribute something a lot more in that proportion today, so wtf is your point?
 
2012-08-09 11:28:44 AM

James F. Campbell: coco ebert: So better public transport supposedly decreases our freedom. Who knew. WTF does everything have to be political?

Certain idiots here do not understand that there is such a thing as positive liberty. They only understand negative liberty.


That's a good way to put it. There are multiple forms of liberty that increased access to good public transport or good health care gives you. It just takes a touch of imagination to realize it.
 
2012-08-09 11:29:02 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: break a deal, spin the wheel.

if it is a few dollars in taxes and you completely paid for the property, you can probably get a mortgage.



I just never realized how little people understand the value of property rights. To be safe in you house and land was one of the most important things the founding fathers wanted us to have. Google it. Im not making it up.To just give that away as so much of fark seems to be ok with makes me very sad.
 
2012-08-09 11:29:35 AM

qorkfiend: walkingtall: You're welcome to leave civilization anytime you want. We won't stop you. Or you can wake up and realize you don't live in a vacuum, and that you're not allowed to profit from the rest of our society for free.

Kicking someone off their land and taking their house for 50 dollars of back taxes is just necessary to live in our society? Really you believe that? This discussion is making my opinion of fark lower and lower the more I realize the kinds of things people like you actually advocate.

Can you provide any citations of anyone being evicted, with no warning or opportunity to rectify the situation, for owing $50 in back taxes?


come on man you already know the anwer to that is no

maybe he'll tell you you're debating wrong again. it cracks me up that people that dense are always masters in the fine art of debate.
 
2012-08-09 11:29:57 AM

walkingtall: Kicking someone off their land and taking their house for 50 dollars of back taxes is just necessary to live in our society? Really you believe that? This discussion is making my opinion of fark lower and lower the more I realize the kinds of things people like you actually advocate


Society is what enables you to own land in the first place. You owe it to the rest of society to maintain that ownership. Without society, your only claim to ownership is if you're a better shot than the next guy who'd like to get his hands on your property.
Me? I'm not that good of a shot, so I'd rather leave protection of my ownership to the police, courts, and government, paid for by my taxes.
 
2012-08-09 11:30:35 AM

Serious Black: walkingtall: "In 1848 Marx and Engels proposed that progressive taxation be used to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeois, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state. Although communism has failed, the idea of progressive taxation as a means of achieving social justice endures."

Yes it is a socialist idea. Granted the source of that quote is biased but the idea of a progressive tax is socialist. Others may agree with it but it is definitely a socialist tool.

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

- Adam Smith, from An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, originally published in 1776

The progressive tax is a capitalist idea as it was formed by the intellectual godfather of capitalism 42 years before Karl Marx was born and 44 years before Friedrich Engels was born.


Interestingly enough, Adam Smith was incredibly skeptical and critical of finance capital and banks. How much we have learned since then!
 
2012-08-09 11:30:36 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Serious Black: It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

- Adam Smith, from An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, originally published in 1776



Uh, they do contribute something a lot more in that proportion today, so wtf is your point?


That the progressive tax is a capitalist idea and not a socialist idea? I'm not trying to debate anything about our current tax code, just a dumbass claim that progressive taxation will destroy capitalism rather than make it more vigorous and vibrant by planting the seeds of growth.
 
2012-08-09 11:31:32 AM

walkingtall: someonelse: walkingtall, maybe you missed my earlier question, and if I missed your response I apologize. You said America used to have freedom. What freedoms do we no longer have?

I will give you one glaring example. For most of American history if someone owned a house and land it was very very hard for the state to wrest control of that from them because the founding fathers knew very well that true freedom started with property rights.


This is true, but the government has always had the right to use eminent domain for mass transit.

I think I get what you're saying- you don't want to vote for Liberals because of Kelo vs. New London by the liberal half of the bench, and similar examples. While I think that's valid, the NAACP opposed the Supreme Court decision, as did many other liberal groups (the ACLU, oddly enough, didn't take a position). There are other cases where Democrats who I most certainly would not call Liberals have restricted rights. Two examples would be anti-smoking laws and trying to make it illegal for kids to buy CDs with dirty lyrics.

If you feel such rights are worth more than mass transit and good health care, that is certainly your right. I don't agree with you, though. I am strongly opposed to the Democrats going in the direction of Tipper Gore and Kelo.

In Israel and many other countries, the big parties have to make alliances with the crazy smaller parties in order to run the country. In our case, the smaller party is what I call the Moderate Derpers. They live in (and often run) HOAs, they were in favor of the Patriot Act, they call the police when their neighbors get too loud, they want to ban cigarettes and dirty lyrics, and want "urban blight" replaced with shopping malls. They also want to help the poor, have good schools, don't mind paying for mass transit, are unsure of but don't strongly object to Obamacare, etc.

In the Reagan era, the Moderate Derpers overwhelmingly voted Republican. Now, they're overwhelmingly voting Democratic. That's how we can go from Reagan destroying Mondale to Obama crushing McCain. For our candidates to win, we have to tolerate the Moderate Derpers, but that doesn't mean we Liberals agree with them. No matter which party wins, there are going to be some Moderate Derpers among them, because that's in part how you win.

I really don't think it's fair to say you won't vote for the Democrats because of the Moderate Derpers. Most Democrats don't agree with them, and they aren't really Democrats.
 
2012-08-09 11:32:12 AM
If I was given the choice of living in Paris, France while coughing up 75% of my income vs. living anywhere in Mississippi tax-free it'd be no choice at all.

www.pariscarrental.org
 
2012-08-09 11:32:44 AM

qorkfiend: walkingtall: You're welcome to leave civilization anytime you want. We won't stop you. Or you can wake up and realize you don't live in a vacuum, and that you're not allowed to profit from the rest of our society for free.

Kicking someone off their land and taking their house for 50 dollars of back taxes is just necessary to live in our society? Really you believe that? This discussion is making my opinion of fark lower and lower the more I realize the kinds of things people like you actually advocate.

Can you provide any citations of anyone being evicted, with no warning or opportunity to rectify the situation, for owing $50 in back taxes?


bonus difficulty: the person also has to have completely paid off the property as the person originally stated.
 
2012-08-09 11:36:06 AM

qorkfiend: Can you provide any citations of anyone being evicted, with no warning or opportunity to rectify the situation, for owing $50 in back taxes?


I dont give a flying rats fark if they had 10 years of notice and 5 people came by a day from the tax assessors office to try and work out a deal to pay the taxes and the homeowner chased them off every time. There should be no way that back taxes should give the govt the power to forcibly remove you at gunpoint from land you have paid for in full. Fine them, hell I would even say garnish wages or put a lien on financial assets. Im not saying the govt should have no power to enforce tax laws. I disagree that being able to remove someone from their land with armed police officers with the right to kill you if you resist should not be able to happen.
 
2012-08-09 11:39:39 AM
Properties that were on some of the 2009 Tax Sales
describe the image

This IL property had a $31,182 lien - Market Value is $1.4 million
Colorado
This property had a $3,375 lien - Market Value $492,000
Arizona
This property had a $1,632 lien - Market Value $245,000


Tax liens. Houses paid for and taken for tax liens. There are probably 1000 of them right now in your state. Kind of silly to argue that it doesnt happen when you can do a 10 second google and find 5000 examples of it.
 
2012-08-09 11:40:15 AM

SquiggelyGrounders: Jackson Herring: Fluorescent Testicle: way south: I'm not big on economics ...

No kidding.

Jackson Herring: oh come on, you know the day Obama won the Presidency was a dark day for the economy

Indeed, it will forever be a black mark against this great nation.

it was spooky, really, just how fast the economy tanked on the news that he'd won the election

Its like the economy grabbed a spade and dug a deeper hole


media.tumblr.com
 
2012-08-09 11:40:28 AM

walkingtall: Epoch_Zero: Land ownership isn't a right, you complete moron.

Good grief. All the strawmen. It is like a Wizard of Oz cosplay convention in here.I never said being able to own land is a right. Freedom from state interference in your ownership once you own land IS a right. It is a right we have lost.

And yes the state can come in and kick you off your land you have completely paid for when you owe and amount of back property taxes. Forcibly remove you at gunpoint from your home for owing just a few dollars in taxes. It happens every single day. That should be be able to happen. Tax lien I can see where when you sell your house you have to pay your taxes or your children after you die etc. We have gone WAY too far in how easily we let the govt take our land and homes from us whenever they feel like it. Do you really not see a problem with this?


Oh tenpounds, how you do stretch.

walkingtall: Kicking someone off their land and taking their house for 50 dollars of back taxes is just necessary to live in our society?


Evidently, someone named walkingtall thinks so. It's right up there.

walkingtall: And yes the state can come in and kick you off your land you have completely paid for when you owe and amount of back property taxes. Forcibly remove you at gunpoint from your home for owing just a few dollars in taxes. It happens every single day. That should be be able to happen

 
2012-08-09 11:40:52 AM

heypete: King Something: And don't forget your passport, since CH isn't part of the EU.

I know. I live in Bern. :)


I remember you posting before (I'm the farker with the Swiss hubby who has lived in Bern). How's life in Bern going? Hope all is well. :)
 
2012-08-09 11:42:02 AM

walkingtall: I dont give a flying rats fark if they had 10 years of notice and 5 people came by a day from the tax assessors office to try and work out a deal to pay the taxes and the homeowner chased them off every time. There should be no way that back taxes should give the govt the power to forcibly remove you at gunpoint from land you have paid for in full.


Hey...wait..


walkingtall: And yes the state can come in and kick you off your land you have completely paid for when you owe and amount of back property taxes. Forcibly remove you at gunpoint from your home for owing just a few dollars in taxes. It happens every single day. That should be be able to happen.



Mitt Rmoney, is that you?
 
2012-08-09 11:42:37 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: Epoch_Zero: Still waiting for those citations that prove your asinine assertions as truth, walkingtall.

But socialism bad is one of the immutable truths of the world, like fire hot, sky blue, water wet, and lemonade good.

Honestly though, the opposition to socialism seems to be rooted in the desire to be able to, to have the 'freedom', to buy anything, up to and including people. It doesn't matter that buying a person would be limiting that person's freedom, because presumably if they wanted to exercise their freedom to buy, they would have worked harder.
Townspeople complaining that your factory ruined the water supply? Buy the town. Kick out the people. Buy the people, force'em to drink the bad water. If the town wants clean water so badly, they should buy it themselves.

And the non 1% think they're not going to be the ones sold at auction, and it will instead be their lessers, be they a race, a religion, or a liberal arts major.


O_o Are you Mr. Thompson, my college guidance counselor??

/I can't say he didn't warn me.
 
2012-08-09 11:42:39 AM

walkingtall: Properties that were on some of the 2009 Tax Sales
describe the image

This IL property had a $31,182 lien - Market Value is $1.4 million
Colorado
This property had a $3,375 lien - Market Value $492,000
Arizona
This property had a $1,632 lien - Market Value $245,000

Tax liens. Houses paid for and taken for tax liens. There are probably 1000 of them right now in your state. Kind of silly to argue that it doesnt happen when you can do a 10 second google and find 5000 examples of it.


If the homeowner has paid for the house, I have no idea why they can't get a 31k loan with 1.4M in collateral.
Something else is going on here.
 
2012-08-09 11:43:04 AM

NateGrey: This post is yet another example of why our economy is still so woefully drab and why it's only going to get worse - because rightists/conservatives like this so commonly found on Fark refuse to have an intelligent debate or be open minded about anything and are so ardently concrete in their ways of thinking that they will never change or critically examine it, and there is no amount of evidence they will ever accept as being sufficient even to begin to challenge their ideas. Ever.

Recognizing this and calling them on their bullshiat makes me an elitist, of course.


CPennypacker: In order for someone to have an intellectual debate with a rightie/republican they would have to be able to present an intellectual point to argue. But they can't because their positions are all based on superstition, ignorance, jealousy or just plain crotchety oldness.


James F. Campbell: Hydra, you are a gold standard kook. I don't think you have any right to be complaining to anyone about intelligent, open minded debates or rigid thinking. Like all conservatives, you are projecting: everything you have accused everyone else of doing is what you yourself are doing. Please kindly come down from your cross and fark off.



Exhibits A, B, and C, folks.

By the way, I've never called myself a conservative - I'm a libertarian (and if you knew anything about what the actual word "conservative" means, you would realize that YOU, in fact, are the true conservative here since you are in favor of ever-increasing government intervention in the operation of the economy, which is EXACTLY what has been going on for decades now).

/question to you three: what would it take for you to re-evaluate your personal stances on these issues? could anything actually change your mind? does this evidence actually exist, or are you so married to your worldview that you'll never change?
 
2012-08-09 11:43:05 AM

walkingtall: max_pooper: Eminent domain, such a newly minted freedom robber than it was included in the Bill of Rights ratified in 1791.

Try again.


You dont read too good do you? I acknowledged eminent domain existed. It exists for a good reason. My point is that it has been expanded WAY beyond where it should be.


www.nebraskastudies.org
 
2012-08-09 11:44:24 AM

Epoch_Zero: Oh tenpounds, how you do stretch.


wut?
 
2012-08-09 11:45:13 AM

Hydra: NateGrey: This post is yet another example of why our economy is still so woefully drab and why it's only going to get worse - because rightists/conservatives like this so commonly found on Fark refuse to have an intelligent debate or be open minded about anything and are so ardently concrete in their ways of thinking that they will never change or critically examine it, and there is no amount of evidence they will ever accept as being sufficient even to begin to challenge their ideas. Ever.

Recognizing this and calling them on their bullshiat makes me an elitist, of course.

CPennypacker: In order for someone to have an intellectual debate with a rightie/republican they would have to be able to present an intellectual point to argue. But they can't because their positions are all based on superstition, ignorance, jealousy or just plain crotchety oldness.

James F. Campbell: Hydra, you are a gold standard kook. I don't think you have any right to be complaining to anyone about intelligent, open minded debates or rigid thinking. Like all conservatives, you are projecting: everything you have accused everyone else of doing is what you yourself are doing. Please kindly come down from your cross and fark off.


Exhibits A, B, and C, folks.

By the way, I've never called myself a conservative - I'm a libertarian (and if you knew anything about what the actual word "conservative" means, you would realize that YOU, in fact, are the true conservative here since you are in favor of ever-increasing government intervention in the operation of the economy, which is EXACTLY what has been going on for decades now).

/question to you three: what would it take for you to re-evaluate your personal stances on these issues? could anything actually change your mind? does this evidence actually exist, or are you so married to your worldview that you'll never change?


I see, so you're a republican who wants to smoke weed then?
 
2012-08-09 11:46:09 AM

Hydra: Exhibits A, B, and C, folks.

By the way, I've never called myself a conservative - I'm a libertarian (and if you knew anything about what the actual word "conservative" means, you would realize that YOU, in fact, are the true conservative here since you are in favor of ever-increasing government intervention in the operation of the economy, which is EXACTLY what has been going on for decades now).

/question to you three: what would it take for you to re-evaluate your personal stances on these issues? could anything actually change your mind? does this evidence actually exist, or are you so married to your worldview that you'll never change?


I understand, a Fark Independent, who votes Republican every chance he gets.

So unique and insightful in your views, but most importantly, you can look down at everyone while voting for RON PAUL.

LOL
 
2012-08-09 11:46:22 AM

CPennypacker: I see, so you're a republican who wants to smoke weed then?


No, he's a republican that doesn't really want to follow or enforce any rules when they don't benefit him directly.
 
2012-08-09 11:46:30 AM

coco ebert: Serious Black: walkingtall: "In 1848 Marx and Engels proposed that progressive taxation be used to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeois, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state. Although communism has failed, the idea of progressive taxation as a means of achieving social justice endures."

Yes it is a socialist idea. Granted the source of that quote is biased but the idea of a progressive tax is socialist. Others may agree with it but it is definitely a socialist tool.

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

- Adam Smith, from An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, originally published in 1776

The progressive tax is a capitalist idea as it was formed by the intellectual godfather of capitalism 42 years before Karl Marx was born and 44 years before Friedrich Engels was born.

Interestingly enough, Adam Smith was incredibly skeptical and critical of finance capital and banks. How much we have learned since then!


Even politicians though out the nineteenth and early twentieth century were incredibly skeptical of financial institutions having so much power.

The Fed is actually our third central bank, the first two were dismal failures each causing a recession after their collapses, in one case it was the biggest recession up to that point.

And politicians were incredibly cautious about enacting the third one, but the great bank panic pushed legislator over the edge in order to have a "lender of last resort" which is ironic that the FDIC pretty much put an end to bank panics.

In my opinion it was more of the same old story, those with money have it their way.
 
2012-08-09 11:47:12 AM
Also why are you upset Hydra, I just took your moronic post and turned it around on you.

Means just as much as what you posted.
 
2012-08-09 11:47:55 AM
Really? That is all you have? I made a typo and that is what you are harping on? It is obvious I am in favor of the right to be secure in your house and land and it seems I have a lot of opposition to this idea. I am flabbergasted that most of fark is ok with nobody having any security in a house that is paid for on land that is paid for and the govt should have the right to take that land and house for any reason at all unless the home and land owner jumps through the right bureaucratic hoops to keep them.
 
2012-08-09 11:51:12 AM

walkingtall: I am flabbergasted that most of fark is ok with nobody having any security in a house that is paid for on land that is paid for and the govt should have the right to take that land and house for any reason at all unless the home and land owner jumps through the right bureaucratic hoops to keep them.


Yup this is exactly what is happening.

Do all Republicans live in a fantasy land?
 
2012-08-09 11:51:18 AM

walkingtall: Really? That is all you have? I made a typo and that is what you are harping on? It is obvious I am in favor of the right to be secure in your house and land and it seems I have a lot of opposition to this idea. I am flabbergasted that most of fark is ok with nobody having any security in a house that is paid for on land that is paid for and the govt should have the right to take that land and house for any reason at all unless the home and land owner jumps through the right bureaucratic hoops to keep them.


transitionculture.org
 
Ehh
2012-08-09 11:52:02 AM
Could be good for a romcom. She's a Southern gal who shoots better than her brothers. He's a French millionaire who wanders through the Winn-Dixie looking for a baguette. Will they find love in the Mississippi mud?
 
2012-08-09 11:52:07 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: qorkfiend: walkingtall: You're welcome to leave civilization anytime you want. We won't stop you. Or you can wake up and realize you don't live in a vacuum, and that you're not allowed to profit from the rest of our society for free.

Kicking someone off their land and taking their house for 50 dollars of back taxes is just necessary to live in our society? Really you believe that? This discussion is making my opinion of fark lower and lower the more I realize the kinds of things people like you actually advocate.

Can you provide any citations of anyone being evicted, with no warning or opportunity to rectify the situation, for owing $50 in back taxes?

bonus difficulty: the person also has to have completely paid off the property as the person originally stated.


This is the closest I found so far: the guy was making a deal with the bank, when some guy walks up and says "I just bought your house. Now get out" or words to that effect.

http://www.azcentral.com/business/realestate/articles/2010/03/07/2010 0 307phoenix-home-evictions.html

Usually it's renters who get evicted without notice, because of something the landlord did. I don't know of what case he's thinking of.
 
2012-08-09 11:52:44 AM

Hydra: /question to you three: what would it take for you to re-evaluate your personal stances on these issues? could anything actually change your mind? does this evidence actually exist, or are you so married to your worldview that you'll never change?


Provide evidence. I'll change my mind. As an example, I've long been open to universal health care options ranging from expanding the VHA to everyone all the way to creating a Singapore-like system. I rarely see any libertarians, conservatives/reactionaries, and/or Republicans say anything good of late about anything like what Singapore actually does, let alone the more "lefty" options.

As for evidence as to why universal health care is necessary, check out Nathaniel Hendren's work on why sick people are screwed by a voluntary insurance system.
 
2012-08-09 11:54:31 AM

walkingtall: Really? That is all you have? I made a typo and that is what you are harping on? It is obvious I am in favor of the right to be secure in your house and land and it seems I have a lot of opposition to this idea. I am flabbergasted that most of fark is ok with nobody having any security in a house that is paid for on land that is paid for and the govt should have the right to take that land and house for any reason at all unless the home and land owner jumps through the right bureaucratic hoops to keep them.


No one's even come close to saying that.
What we're saying is: Pay your property tax. That is not some exotic bureaucratic hoop.
It is the fee for ownership.
Yes, there is a fee for ownership in our society. It goes towards maintaining the systems, institutions, and services that make your ownership legally possible.
Without these societal protections, it's like I said: You'd better hope you're a better shot than the next guy who comes along, or he's the new owner of your property.
 
2012-08-09 11:55:55 AM

walkingtall: I am flabbergasted


Clearly.

walkingtall: that most of fark is ok with nobody having any security in a house that is paid for on land that is paid for and the govt should have the right to take that land and house for any reason at all unless the home and land owner jumps through the right bureaucratic hoops to keep them.


How dare they expect you have to pay for your house and pay personal property taxes on it. How dare they! This isn't what the founders wanted! I know because Glenn Beck explained it to me!
 
2012-08-09 11:55:56 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: If the homeowner has paid for the house, I have no idea why they can't get a 31k loan with 1.4M in collateral.
Something else is going on here.



It doesnt matter to me what the reason is the homeowner didnt pay the 31k in taxes. The fact the government can forcibly remove people from their houses for taxes is ridiculous. Banks and lien holders enforcing their property rights is one thing. If you own the land and someone isnt paying you for it you should have the right to have the govt help in removing the person living illegally on your land. Giving power to govt to forcibly remove someone from land and houses that are paid for is what I rail against. I just cant believe I am so alone in this.
 
2012-08-09 11:59:56 AM

walkingtall: If you own the land and someone isnt paying you for it you should have the right to have the govt help in removing the person living illegally on your land. I want the government's help in enforcing my ownership rights, but I don't want to pay for it.


FTFY
 
2012-08-09 12:00:49 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: What we're saying is: Pay your property tax. That is not some exotic bureaucratic hoop.
It is the fee for ownership.
Yes, there is a fee for ownership in our society. It goes towards maintaining the systems, institutions, and services that make your ownership legally possible.
Without these societal protections, it's like I said: You'd better hope you're a better shot than the next guy who comes along, or he's the new owner of your property.



Bullshiat. Thats not freedom. And that belief is why we lost it. That is simply renting from society. That is socialism. That isnt freedom. I know you think you are so smart for that comment but if you could just see the danger it poses. If I pay for a house and land I dont owe society anything. I own a house and land. That is it. You dont get the right to tell my that I have to pay some arbitrary amount of money to society as a cost to keeping it. I guess you do because that is the system we have allowed to develop but that is not freedom. I was asked snarkily to give an example of freedoms lost. I did so. It is a great loss of freedom. You just seem to be ok with it. Im not.
 
2012-08-09 12:01:19 PM

Hydra: /question to you three: what would it take for you to re-evaluate your personal stances on these issues? could anything actually change your mind? does this evidence actually exist, or are you so married to your worldview that you'll never change?


Sure.

Stop insisting on repeating 40 years of failed economic policy that has only served to enrich the top at the expense of everyone else, and ignoring all the data that supports this conclusion.
Stop insisting that tax cuts create jobs, when this has been proven to be false.
Stop ignoring the fact that the greatest economic boom in this country happened at a time of high taxation, high unionization, an emphasis on education, and that it was driven by a rising middle class.
Stop insisting that the government cannot create jobs.
Stop insisting that investments into infrastructure have no benefits.
Stop insisting that privatization is the end-all-be-all of government policy, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Stop insisting that Republicans are the fiscal conservatives, when all evidence points the other direction.
Stop your partisan nonsense when it comes to the debt and the deficit, which are only important when the President is a Democrat.
Stop insisting on a 12-year-old's tax policy of "Starve the beast".
Stop playing partisan political games with the US's credit rating.
Stop rooting against the United States, just because there's a Democrat in office.
Stop insisting that some people are not deserving of equal rights, and that your religious beliefs should be considered before anyone else.

And, most importantly, stop farking lying about everything.
 
2012-08-09 12:03:33 PM

walkingtall: Sergeant Grumbles: What we're saying is: Pay your property tax. That is not some exotic bureaucratic hoop.
It is the fee for ownership.
Yes, there is a fee for ownership in our society. It goes towards maintaining the systems, institutions, and services that make your ownership legally possible.
Without these societal protections, it's like I said: You'd better hope you're a better shot than the next guy who comes along, or he's the new owner of your property.


Bullshiat. Thats not freedom. And that belief is why we lost it. That is simply renting from society. That is socialism. That isnt freedom. I know you think you are so smart for that comment but if you could just see the danger it poses. If I pay for a house and land I dont owe society anything. I own a house and land. That is it. You dont get the right to tell my that I have to pay some arbitrary amount of money to society as a cost to keeping it. I guess you do because that is the system we have allowed to develop but that is not freedom. I was asked snarkily to give an example of freedoms lost. I did so. It is a great loss of freedom. You just seem to be ok with it. Im not.


The "freedom" you want is the "freedom" to not pay your taxes but gain all the benefits of society, i.e. freeload off of the rest of us. Sorry, no - your "freedom" doesn't get to infringe upon mine.
 
Displayed 50 of 397 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report