[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[bripat9643]

You do understand that money circulates, right?

Money is just useless scraps of paper. You can't eat it or wear it. Spending money isn't a service to the taxpayers.

We understand your desire for free government services, which you disguise by pretending ignorance of services that you gladly, if unknowingly, take advantage of every day. So be it. There are enough of us not in denial to offset the ignorazzi at the polls.

There you go again, attributing positions to me that I don't hold. I don't want free government "services." I want no government "services."

Please explain why I should be charged for stuff I haven't asked for and don't want.

Vote for people who promise no government services.

I do whenever I'm given the choice. However, how does that justify anyone voting to have government take what I earn by holding a gun to my head? How does a majority vote justify robbery?

 

[PMZ]

Simple logic tells you that taking money from people who actually produce something and giving it to tics on the ass of society is going to decrease the net total output of useful goods and services.

The fact that a parasite can spend money just as well as a someone who works isn't the point. What each person produces is the point.



Aside from the Dept of Defense, I can't think of a single "critical service." The term is practically an oxymoron.

You do understand that money circulates, right?

Money is just useless scraps of paper. You can't eat it or wear it. Spending money isn't a service to the taxpayers.

We understand your desire for free government services, which you disguise by pretending ignorance of services that you gladly, if unknowingly, take advantage of every day. So be it. There are enough of us not in denial to offset the ignorazzi at the polls.

There you go again, attributing positions to me that I don't hold. I don't want free government "services." I want no government "services."

Please explain why I should be charged for stuff I haven't asked for and don't want.

The government doesn't just just "spend" money. They pay salaries and buy goods which puts money back into circulation. Or they invest in national interests which has the same effect.

 

[PMZ]

Money is just useless scraps of paper. You can't eat it or wear it. Spending money isn't a service to the taxpayers.



There you go again, attributing positions to me that I don't hold. I don't want free government "services." I want no government "services."

Please explain why I should be charged for stuff I haven't asked for and don't want.

Vote for people who promise no government services.

I do whenever I'm given the choice. However, how does that justify anyone voting to have government take what I earn by holding a gun to my head? How does a majority vote justify robbery?

We choose to live in a democracy. Responsible people vote their interests and beliefs. We all live with the results.

Consider: I had to live under the worst President in American history, and, as a consequence, now owe my share of $17T, the remaining cost of his adventure in fantasy land. Am I happy about that? No. Am I willing to give up democracy and accept tyranny to avoid a repeat? Emphatically no.

 

[bripat9643]

You do understand that money circulates, right?

Money is just useless scraps of paper. You can't eat it or wear it. Spending money isn't a service to the taxpayers.

We understand your desire for free government services, which you disguise by pretending ignorance of services that you gladly, if unknowingly, take advantage of every day. So be it. There are enough of us not in denial to offset the ignorazzi at the polls.

There you go again, attributing positions to me that I don't hold. I don't want free government "services." I want no government "services."

Please explain why I should be charged for stuff I haven't asked for and don't want.

The government doesn't just just "spend" money. They pay salaries and buy goods which puts money back into circulation. Or they invest in national interests which has the same effect.

What "putting money back in circulation" means is that useless ticks on the ass of society get to consume goods and services they have done nothing to earn. That does not benefit society in any way. Spending money isn't a beneficial service. It doesn't add one iota to the gross national product.

Furthermore, except in exceptional cases, government doesn't "invest." It pours our tax dollars down the sewer hole never to be seen again.

 

[bripat9643]

Vote for people who promise no government services.

I do whenever I'm given the choice. However, how does that justify anyone voting to have government take what I earn by holding a gun to my head? How does a majority vote justify robbery?

We choose to live in a democracy. Responsible people vote their interests and beliefs. We all live with the results.

I never "chose" to live in a Democracy. I was born in one. Whether it's "responsible" to vote is a non sequitur. How does voting justify taking money from people that they have earned?

 

[PMZ]

I do whenever I'm given the choice. However, how does that justify anyone voting to have government take what I earn by holding a gun to my head? How does a majority vote justify robbery?

We choose to live in a democracy. Responsible people vote their interests and beliefs. We all live with the results.

I never "chose" to live in a Democracy. I was born in one. Whether it's "responsible" to vote is a non sequitur. How does voting justify taking money from people that they have earned?

Every day that you don't move you choose to live in a democracy.

 

[bripat9643]

We choose to live in a democracy. Responsible people vote their interests and beliefs. We all live with the results.

I never "chose" to live in a Democracy. I was born in one. Whether it's "responsible" to vote is a non sequitur. How does voting justify taking money from people that they have earned?

Every day that you don't move you choose to live in a democracy.

Horseshit. Under what theory of jurisprudence is that claim valid?

 

[PMZ]

Money is just useless scraps of paper. You can't eat it or wear it. Spending money isn't a service to the taxpayers.



There you go again, attributing positions to me that I don't hold. I don't want free government "services." I want no government "services."

Please explain why I should be charged for stuff I haven't asked for and don't want.

The government doesn't just just "spend" money. They pay salaries and buy goods which puts money back into circulation. Or they invest in national interests which has the same effect.

What "putting money back in circulation" means is that useless ticks on the ass of society get to consume goods and services they have done nothing to earn. That does not benefit society in any way. Spending money isn't a beneficial service. It doesn't add one iota to the gross national product.

Furthermore, except in exceptional cases, government doesn't "invest." It pours our tax dollars down the sewer hole never to be seen again.

Paying salaries, and buying goods, has the same effect on the economy, whether the originator be a company, a person, or the government.

 

[bripat9643]

The government doesn't just just "spend" money. They pay salaries and buy goods which puts money back into circulation. Or they invest in national interests which has the same effect.

What "putting money back in circulation" means is that useless ticks on the ass of society get to consume goods and services they have done nothing to earn. That does not benefit society in any way. Spending money isn't a beneficial service. It doesn't add one iota to the gross national product.

Furthermore, except in exceptional cases, government doesn't "invest." It pours our tax dollars down the sewer hole never to be seen again.

Paying salaries, and buying goods, has the same effect on the economy, whether the originator be a company, a person, or the government.

Wrong, because when a private company pays wages it had to produce a quantity of goods or services that become available for Americans to consume. When government takes from Richard Roe to give to the parasite John Doe, nothing was produced by John Doe for the money he spends. Richard Roe has less to spend.

Without the government transfer John Doe couldn't consume a thing without producing goods or services for his fellow Americans to consume. With the government transfer, he can be a useless tick on the ass of society.

There's obviously a vast economic difference between the two types of transactions.

 

[PMZ]

What "putting money back in circulation" means is that useless ticks on the ass of society get to consume goods and services they have done nothing to earn. That does not benefit society in any way. Spending money isn't a beneficial service. It doesn't add one iota to the gross national product.

Furthermore, except in exceptional cases, government doesn't "invest." It pours our tax dollars down the sewer hole never to be seen again.

Paying salaries, and buying goods, has the same effect on the economy, whether the originator be a company, a person, or the government.

Wrong, because when a private company pays wages it had to produce a quantity of goods or services that become available for Americans to consume. When government takes from Richard Roe to give to the parasite John Doe, nothing was produced by John Doe for the money he spends. Richard Roe has less to spend.

Without the government transfer John Doe couldn't consume a thing without producing goods or services for his fellow Americans to consume. With the government transfer, he can be a useless tick on the ass of society.

There's obviously a vast economic difference between the two types of transactions.

The government produces services just like a Dr or lawyer or policeman does. Your problem is that, without original thought, you have accepted the propaganda that none of those government services have value. They do to someone, that may or may not be you. Just like private enterprise services.

Your control over that is voting. I Personally recommend that you vote for folks that promise to cut back on all services that don't go specifically to you. Why do I recommend that? Because I'm sure that those folks will lose elections to people who are responsible to a larger cross section of their constituents.

That's democracy. You choose to support it every day that you don't move.

 

[JoeNormal]

Simple logic tells you that taking money from people who actually produce something and giving it to tics on the ass of society is going to decrease the net total output of useful goods and services.

Couldn't agree more. The real parasites - the ones sucking the most money from the system - tend to be top executives, Wall Street douchebags and bankers.

Only morons swallow that libturd bullshit that corporate executives are parasites. The taxpayers don't pay their salaries, so by definition they aren't parasites.

On the other hand, every employee at the Dept of Education is a useless tick on the ass of society.

They set their own compensation packages you friggen moron. It's as far from a meritocracy as it gets.

 

[PMZ]

I never "chose" to live in a Democracy. I was born in one. Whether it's "responsible" to vote is a non sequitur. How does voting justify taking money from people that they have earned?

Every day that you don't move you choose to live in a democracy.

Horseshit. Under what theory of jurisprudence is that claim valid?

I would call that intuitively obvious.

 

[bripat9643]

Couldn't agree more. The real parasites - the ones sucking the most money from the system - tend to be top executives, Wall Street douchebags and bankers.

Only morons swallow that libturd bullshit that corporate executives are parasites. The taxpayers don't pay their salaries, so by definition they aren't parasites.

On the other hand, every employee at the Dept of Education is a useless tick on the ass of society.

They set their own compensation packages you friggen moron. It's as far from a meritocracy as it gets.

The exchange is purely voluntary. If it wasn't, it would be illegal, you friggen moron.

Whether the deserve what the receive is purely an existential question, not an ethical or legal question.

The transfer of money to government parasites, on the other hand, is conducted at gunpoint.

 

[bripat9643]

Every day that you don't move you choose to live in a democracy.

Horseshit. Under what theory of jurisprudence is that claim valid?

I would call that intuitively obvious.

I agree. It's intuitively obvious that your birth is not agreement to anything. It's also a basic legal principle.

 

[PMZ]

Only morons swallow that libturd bullshit that corporate executives are parasites. The taxpayers don't pay their salaries, so by definition they aren't parasites.

On the other hand, every employee at the Dept of Education is a useless tick on the ass of society.

They set their own compensation packages you friggen moron. It's as far from a meritocracy as it gets.

The exchange is purely voluntary. If it wasn't, it would be illegal, you friggen moron.

Whether the deserve what the receive is purely an existential question, not an ethical or legal question.

The transfer of money to government parasites, on the other hand, is conducted at gunpoint.

His point went right over your head.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Couldn't agree more. The real parasites - the ones sucking the most money from the system - tend to be top executives, Wall Street douchebags and bankers.

Only morons swallow that libturd bullshit that corporate executives are parasites. The taxpayers don't pay their salaries, so by definition they aren't parasites.

On the other hand, every employee at the Dept of Education is a useless tick on the ass of society.

"The taxpayers don't pay their salaries, so by definition they aren't parasites."

Workers, consumers, and shareholders do. When a small useless thing lives at the expense of a big thing, that is a parasite.

Well, you've certainly explained something about YOUR existence to us here, and we thank you. However, your ignorance of what those you envy actually do in their jobs is no basis for anything except contempt from others.

 

[PMZ]

Horseshit. Under what theory of jurisprudence is that claim valid?

I would call that intuitively obvious.

I agree. It's intuitively obvious that your birth is not agreement to anything. It's also a basic legal principle.

Every day you could move to a country more amenable to your principles. Every day, apparently, you choose to stay here. Inexplicable, unless there is no such alternative, in which case your noise here is reduced from essential reality to childish whining.

 

[bripat9643]

Paying salaries, and buying goods, has the same effect on the economy, whether the originator be a company, a person, or the government.

Wrong, because when a private company pays wages it had to produce a quantity of goods or services that become available for Americans to consume. When government takes from Richard Roe to give to the parasite John Doe, nothing was produced by John Doe for the money he spends. Richard Roe has less to spend.

Without the government transfer John Doe couldn't consume a thing without producing goods or services for his fellow Americans to consume. With the government transfer, he can be a useless tick on the ass of society.

There's obviously a vast economic difference between the two types of transactions.

The government produces services just like a Dr or lawyer or policeman does.

Nope. The "services" government provides are more along the lines of the kind of thing Guido The Leg Breaker provides. Government is just one vase extortion racket. It forces you to pay for "services" you don't really want or need. There's nothing similar to a profit making business that has to produce something its customers actually want.

Your problem is that, without original thought, you have accepted the propaganda that none of those government services have value. They do to someone, that may or may not be you. Just like private enterprise services.

They have no value to me. If you place a value on them, then you pay for them. Why should I pay for them?

Your control over that is voting. I Personally recommend that you vote for folks that promise to cut back on all services that don't go specifically to you. Why do I recommend that? Because I'm sure that those folks will lose elections to people who are responsible to a larger cross section of their constituents.

In other words, I have no control at all. I propose to cut back all services, period. What the majority wants is irrelevant. You have yet to prove that a majority vote justifies forcing me to pay for stuff I don't want.

That's democracy. You choose to support it every day that you don't move.

You have yet to provide any credible support for this claim.

 

[bripat9643]

I would call that intuitively obvious.

I agree. It's intuitively obvious that your birth is not agreement to anything. It's also a basic legal principle.

Every day you could move to a country more amenable to your principles. Every day, apparently, you choose to stay here. Inexplicable, unless there is no such alternative, in which case your noise here is reduced from essential reality to childish whining.

Every day you could move to Cuba, worm. What's stopping you?

 

[bripat9643]

They set their own compensation packages you friggen moron. It's as far from a meritocracy as it gets.

The exchange is purely voluntary. If it wasn't, it would be illegal, you friggen moron.

Whether the deserve what the receive is purely an existential question, not an ethical or legal question.

The transfer of money to government parasites, on the other hand, is conducted at gunpoint.

His point went right over your head.

His point was a non sequitur. Your points, on the other hand, are almost entirely Marxist idiocies.