Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm not talking taxes, I'm talking profit sharing. I'm talking about increasing the wages of the workers who made record profits possible. I'm talking about strengthening the buying power of the middle class consumer, thus stimulating the economy.In the era of wage deflation and a struggling middle class, do you think it is inappropriate to "whine" about record profits?
After all, it was worker's efforts that went into those record profits. Perhaps they could wet their beak after all that hard work.
The imbalance is only partly created by "low" taxes. Taxing the rich more will not solve the underlying causes.
again, only an idiot calls taxation - especially taxation by a duly elected representative government - theft.
How much will be enough for you Goose Stepper thieves?
please, explain how taxation is theft.
Paulitician and Bripat, two raving lunatics. You find the burden of taxes so onerous here, get the hell out, you are not wanted or needed here. Go to Russia or Somalia. See how long they tolerate your sorry asses and silly ideas.
How much will be enough for you Goose Stepper thieves?
please, explain how taxation is theft.
That's easy.
Theft - the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another.
Taxation - a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
please, explain how taxation is theft.
That's easy.
Theft - the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another.
Taxation - a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
Not a single one of these morons has managed to explain how taxation differs from theft. On of them even posted the idiotic notion that taxes are like dues at a club. I've never heard of a club that used guns to collect its dues.
Using what passes as 'logic' in your little warped world, no living American citizen is bound in any way to the Constitution of the United States.The 16th amendment. It's right there in the constitution. Try reading the document before you claim something else that's patently false.
Yeah, the communist party amendment.
I didn't sign the Constitution, so it has no legitimate authority over me.
And you want the rest of us to take you and your opinions seriously.
good luck with that.
As a citizen, you are responsible to vote and pay taxes. You are not compelled, but responsible.
You are compelled to pay taxes, but not by the Constitution. What does it mean to claim you are "responsible" for voting?
You should REALLY check out the US Constitution again, I think you might be going off the conservatives, Articles Of Confederation instead...
Did you vote? You are represented. There is no taxation without representation. You are responsible to pay taxes.
That still doesn't meet the definition of "consent." I have voted against every tax increase on the ballot and against every politician who said he would raise my taxes. How have I consented to be taxed?
[I don't like my tax dollars to be spent bombing people half way around the world, but I am a responsible American citizen and as such I don't buy the whole anti-government Anarchist come Conservative ideology that falsely preaches taxation as a criminal racketeering conspiracy.
You're a bootlicking drone, so of course you don't "buy it." However, facts and logic indicate that government is indistinguishable from an organized criminal gang.
I don't like when hoodlums use money they stole from me to pay for crack and prostitutes. How does that prove they haven't stolen my money?
Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:
"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."
you can't answer the question, can you? let's try again.
why do you believe that taxes collected by a duly elected representative government are tantamount to theft?
Read the definition of theft. Then explain how taxation differs.
A common thing I hear from conservatives is that taxation is a form of theft, but those same conservatives make exceptions to that (like law enforcement, military etc) But if taxing is forcibly taking money from one group of people and giving it to another then how can you justify taxes at all--even for the military?
Libertarians say that taxation is like theft because it takes property from the unwilling. What they ignore, time and time again, is the crucial role of democratic consent. Taxes are not arbitrary impositions decreed by a faceless government. Rather, taxes are the dues we pay in exchange for membership in a society and access to all the services it offers.
The situation can be compared to a private club that charges a membership fee in exchange for providing benefits and amenities to its members. Obviously, the club is within its rights to charge whatever price it believes fair in exchange for this. If you believe the price is too high, you’re free to renounce your membership and leave the club. What you’re not free to do is to refuse to pay, but demand that you still be allowed to sit in the club and use its facilities
Read the definition of theft. Then explain how taxation differs.
A common thing I hear from conservatives is that taxation is a form of theft, but those same conservatives make exceptions to that (like law enforcement, military etc) But if taxing is forcibly taking money from one group of people and giving it to another then how can you justify taxes at all--even for the military?
I'm a libertarian, and we don't make exceptions. All taxation is theft.
Libertarians say that taxation is like theft because it takes property from the unwilling. What they ignore, time and time again, is the crucial role of democratic consent. Taxes are not arbitrary impositions decreed by a faceless government. Rather, taxes are the dues we pay in exchange for membership in a society and access to all the services it offers.
Majority rule does not constitute consent. if it did, that means the poor Negro hanging from a tree "consented" when the lynch mob strung him up.
The situation can be compared to a private club that charges a membership fee in exchange for providing benefits and amenities to its members. Obviously, the club is within its rights to charge whatever price it believes fair in exchange for this. If you believe the price is too high, youre free to renounce your membership and leave the club. What youre not free to do is to refuse to pay, but demand that you still be allowed to sit in the club and use its facilities
ROFL! That has got to be the dumbest rationalization for taxation ever posted. Government bares no resemblance to a private club whatsoever. When did a private club ever use guns to collect dues from its members? When did a club ever put people in concentration camps? Employ forced labor? Murder people? Enforce slavery? Spy on its members? When did anyone become a member of a private club simply by being born or living in a given geographical area? Has a private club ever done any of these things? No it hasn't, because the minute it did we would call it a criminal gang. So doing anything governments are known for doing makes an organization a criminal gang, not a club.
The comparison with a private club isn't just wrong, it's positively absurd. In almost every detail government resembles a criminal gang, not a private club. It pursues its enterprises and enforces its whims over a specific geographical area. It has monopoly "services" that it offers at inflated prices. Gangs offer drugs, high interest loans, protection and prostitution. Government offers roads, infrastructure, education, social programs and regulation. In both cases, competition to provide these services is not permitted. Pablo Escobar even built low income housing for the poor living in Medellin, and he also paid for the city's sewage and water treatment plant. Medellin is the only city in Colombia where it's safe to drink the water. I defy you to find any organization that more closely resembles government than that. Criminal gangs also have their minions and favored special interests, just like government. Al Capone gave generously to numerous charities and was very popular with the people Chicago. He had numerous city officials on his payroll.
Private clubs are entirely voluntary. To become a member you have to explicitly consent to the rules by signing a contract. No one ever consented to government. No one ever signed a contract agreeing to pay taxes. You can stop your club membership any time you like without relocating. Not so with government.
I realize the truth about government is distressing to bootlicking drones like yourself. It has no ethical or moral justification. Government is a vicious, brutal unethical means to organize society. It's understandable that you, as one of its minions, would attempt to give it some respectability by comparing it with an institution that is respectable and not hated by most of humanity.
A common thing I hear from conservatives is that taxation is a form of theft, but those same conservatives make exceptions to that (like law enforcement, military etc) But if taxing is forcibly taking money from one group of people and giving it to another then how can you justify taxes at all--even for the military?
I'm a libertarian, and we don't make exceptions. All taxation is theft.
Majority rule does not constitute consent. if it did, that means the poor Negro hanging from a tree "consented" when the lynch mob strung him up.
The situation can be compared to a private club that charges a membership fee in exchange for providing benefits and amenities to its members. Obviously, the club is within its rights to charge whatever price it believes fair in exchange for this. If you believe the price is too high, you’re free to renounce your membership and leave the club. What you’re not free to do is to refuse to pay, but demand that you still be allowed to sit in the club and use its facilities
ROFL! That has got to be the dumbest rationalization for taxation ever posted. Government bares no resemblance to a private club whatsoever. When did a private club ever use guns to collect dues from its members? When did a club ever put people in concentration camps? Employ forced labor? Murder people? Enforce slavery? Spy on its members? When did anyone become a member of a private club simply by being born or living in a given geographical area? Has a private club ever done any of these things? No it hasn't, because the minute it did we would call it a criminal gang. So doing anything governments are known for doing makes an organization a criminal gang, not a club.
The comparison with a private club isn't just wrong, it's positively absurd. In almost every detail government resembles a criminal gang, not a private club. It pursues its enterprises and enforces its whims over a specific geographical area. It has monopoly "services" that it offers at inflated prices. Gangs offer drugs, high interest loans, protection and prostitution. Government offers roads, infrastructure, education, social programs and regulation. In both cases, competition to provide these services is not permitted. Pablo Escobar even built low income housing for the poor living in Medellin, and he also paid for the city's sewage and water treatment plant. Medellin is the only city in Colombia where it's safe to drink the water. I defy you to find any organization that more closely resembles government than that. Criminal gangs also have their minions and favored special interests, just like government. Al Capone gave generously to numerous charities and was very popular with the people Chicago. He had numerous city officials on his payroll.
Private clubs are entirely voluntary. To become a member you have to explicitly consent to the rules by signing a contract. No one ever consented to government. No one ever signed a contract agreeing to pay taxes. You can stop your club membership any time you like without relocating. Not so with government.
I realize the truth about government is distressing to bootlicking drones like yourself. It has no ethical or moral justification. Government is a vicious, brutal unethical means to organize society. It's understandable that you, as one of its minions, would attempt to give it some respectability by comparing it with an institution that is respectable and not hated by most of humanity.
Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.
I'm a libertarian, and we don't make exceptions. All taxation is theft.
Majority rule does not constitute consent. if it did, that means the poor Negro hanging from a tree "consented" when the lynch mob strung him up.
ROFL! That has got to be the dumbest rationalization for taxation ever posted. Government bares no resemblance to a private club whatsoever. When did a private club ever use guns to collect dues from its members? When did a club ever put people in concentration camps? Employ forced labor? Murder people? Enforce slavery? Spy on its members? When did anyone become a member of a private club simply by being born or living in a given geographical area? Has a private club ever done any of these things? No it hasn't, because the minute it did we would call it a criminal gang. So doing anything governments are known for doing makes an organization a criminal gang, not a club.
The comparison with a private club isn't just wrong, it's positively absurd. In almost every detail government resembles a criminal gang, not a private club. It pursues its enterprises and enforces its whims over a specific geographical area. It has monopoly "services" that it offers at inflated prices. Gangs offer drugs, high interest loans, protection and prostitution. Government offers roads, infrastructure, education, social programs and regulation. In both cases, competition to provide these services is not permitted. Pablo Escobar even built low income housing for the poor living in Medellin, and he also paid for the city's sewage and water treatment plant. Medellin is the only city in Colombia where it's safe to drink the water. I defy you to find any organization that more closely resembles government than that. Criminal gangs also have their minions and favored special interests, just like government. Al Capone gave generously to numerous charities and was very popular with the people Chicago. He had numerous city officials on his payroll.
Private clubs are entirely voluntary. To become a member you have to explicitly consent to the rules by signing a contract. No one ever consented to government. No one ever signed a contract agreeing to pay taxes. You can stop your club membership any time you like without relocating. Not so with government.
I realize the truth about government is distressing to bootlicking drones like yourself. It has no ethical or moral justification. Government is a vicious, brutal unethical means to organize society. It's understandable that you, as one of its minions, would attempt to give it some respectability by comparing it with an institution that is respectable and not hated by most of humanity.
Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.
Keynes was just a sleazy propagandist who told the politicians exactly what they wanted here. He provided them a pseudo-scientific justification for all the antisocial policies they had always wanted to try. Every theory Keynes postulated turned out to be false. Not only that, but none of his theories were even original. Various frauds and con-artists had been promoting that shit for decades, if not centuries.
Note that you didn't even attempt to contradict what I posted.
I'm a libertarian, and we don't make exceptions. All taxation is theft.
Majority rule does not constitute consent. if it did, that means the poor Negro hanging from a tree "consented" when the lynch mob strung him up.
ROFL! That has got to be the dumbest rationalization for taxation ever posted. Government bares no resemblance to a private club whatsoever. When did a private club ever use guns to collect dues from its members? When did a club ever put people in concentration camps? Employ forced labor? Murder people? Enforce slavery? Spy on its members? When did anyone become a member of a private club simply by being born or living in a given geographical area? Has a private club ever done any of these things? No it hasn't, because the minute it did we would call it a criminal gang. So doing anything governments are known for doing makes an organization a criminal gang, not a club.
The comparison with a private club isn't just wrong, it's positively absurd. In almost every detail government resembles a criminal gang, not a private club. It pursues its enterprises and enforces its whims over a specific geographical area. It has monopoly "services" that it offers at inflated prices. Gangs offer drugs, high interest loans, protection and prostitution. Government offers roads, infrastructure, education, social programs and regulation. In both cases, competition to provide these services is not permitted. Pablo Escobar even built low income housing for the poor living in Medellin, and he also paid for the city's sewage and water treatment plant. Medellin is the only city in Colombia where it's safe to drink the water. I defy you to find any organization that more closely resembles government than that. Criminal gangs also have their minions and favored special interests, just like government. Al Capone gave generously to numerous charities and was very popular with the people Chicago. He had numerous city officials on his payroll.
Private clubs are entirely voluntary. To become a member you have to explicitly consent to the rules by signing a contract. No one ever consented to government. No one ever signed a contract agreeing to pay taxes. You can stop your club membership any time you like without relocating. Not so with government.
I realize the truth about government is distressing to bootlicking drones like yourself. It has no ethical or moral justification. Government is a vicious, brutal unethical means to organize society. It's understandable that you, as one of its minions, would attempt to give it some respectability by comparing it with an institution that is respectable and not hated by most of humanity.
Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.
Keynes was just a sleazy propagandist who told the politicians exactly what they wanted here. He provided them a pseudo-scientific justification for all the antisocial policies they had always wanted to try. Every theory Keynes postulated turned out to be false. Not only that, but none of his theories were even original. Various frauds and con-artists had been promoting that shit for decades, if not centuries.
Note that you didn't even attempt to contradict what I posted.
Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.
Keynes was just a sleazy propagandist who told the politicians exactly what they wanted here. He provided them a pseudo-scientific justification for all the antisocial policies they had always wanted to try. Every theory Keynes postulated turned out to be false. Not only that, but none of his theories were even original. Various frauds and con-artists had been promoting that shit for decades, if not centuries.
Note that you didn't even attempt to contradict what I posted.
Sorry wing nutter, the US was FOUNDED on a SOCIETY, as Ben said, don't like it, go live among the savages!
I swear to God that this virus of conservatives not believing the facts right there in front of them is contagious-- and you have caught it big time. Just because you say something it doesn't change FACTS and make it so--that is how three year olds expect life to be.
The Vienna and Chicago schools have foisted a load of baloney on the market that, when made into policy, has led to every major recession, not to mention the Great Depression, since the establishment of economics as a field.
"Keynesian economics is the view that in the short run, especially during recessions, economic output is strongly influenced by aggregate demand (total spending in the economy). In the Keynesian view, aggregate demand does not necessarily equal the productive capacity of the economy; instead, it is influenced by a host of factors and sometimes behaves erratically, affecting production, employment, and inflation
New neoclassical synthesis or new synthesis is the fusion of the major, modern macroeconomic schools of thought, new classical and new Keynesian, into a consensus on the best way to explain short-run fluctuations in the economy. This new synthesis is analogous to the neoclassical synthesis that combined neoclassical economics with Keynesian macroeconomics.The new synthesis provides the theoretical foundation for much of contemporary mainstream economics. It is an important part of the theoretical foundation for the work done by the Federal Reserve and many other central banks."
Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.
Keynes was just a sleazy propagandist who told the politicians exactly what they wanted here. He provided them a pseudo-scientific justification for all the antisocial policies they had always wanted to try. Every theory Keynes postulated turned out to be false. Not only that, but none of his theories were even original. Various frauds and con-artists had been promoting that shit for decades, if not centuries.
Note that you didn't even attempt to contradict what I posted.
ONE state or nation to EVER run successfully with your wing nutter libertarian fantasy
Which part of living within our means to pay am I missing?
Falls on the deaf and dumb every time.
