Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

Then why do Democrats keep pushing for higher and higher taxes? Also, unfortunately the loopholes they use are there for a reason - they're generally necessary but, as with any system, there will be some "abuse". That's pretty far down the list of my concerns though - most important is shinking government; I spent one week so far working with the gov and the level of incompetence, redundancy, and laziness is g-ddamn astonishing even for a cynical critic of the gov such as myself.

I've worked with a few and at least as far as IT goes they are useless
 
Hold up, something got skipped that I believe needs more discussion:

How is taxation theft?

Well, paying taxes isn't exactly voluntary. If you refuse, they will send men with guns to your house. Assuming they can't just garnish your wages or transfer the money right out of your bank account without your permission. Failing that, they throw you in prison.

That's part of the reason why I'm conservative, since I want smaller government, since everything the government does is backed with force. It absolutely needs to be worth it. With government being so big and sticking their noses in every aspect of our lives, imprisoning people who refuse to fund it becomes less and less justifiable.
 
Well, paying taxes isn't exactly voluntary. If you refuse, they will send men with guns to your house. Assuming they can't just garnish your wages or transfer the money right out of your bank account without your permission. Failing that, they throw you in prison.

That's part of the reason why I'm conservative, since I want smaller government, since everything the government does is backed with force. It absolutely needs to be worth it. With government being so big and sticking their noses in every aspect of our lives, imprisoning people who refuse to fund it becomes less and less justifiable.

I'm still not seeing the theft, and the second part of your post seems to contradict the first. Even a smaller government will need to collect taxes, so by that logic you're ok with a little bit of theft?
 
I'm still not seeing the theft, and the second part of your post seems to contradict the first. Even a smaller government will need to collect taxes, so by that logic you're ok with a little bit of theft?

Your second sentence contradicts your first. :p

Yes, I'm okay with taxes (theft) so long as it's actually important enough to justify destroying lives over if people refuse to pay them. Like for national security, law and order, etc. If someone refuses to pay their fair share for those things, I think it could absolutely be justifiable to punish them. But destroying someone's life because they refuse to pay for your college or your birth control or your abortion or whatever, then it's absolutely unjustifiable and completely immoral.
 
There are certain public goods that can ONLY be provided by government, such as national defense, traffic control, basic safety regulations, etc. Those could potentially be covered through tariffs but they may very well require a low level of taxation. Beyond this low, minimal level, taxation is outright theft perpetuated by force in order to protect those in power and to make up for their ineptitude - what else do you call it when I work and a quarter of my earnings disappear before I ever see them? We can absolutely shrink our government by a lot, keep the capable people around, and still accomplish everything that needs to be accomplished.

By the way, what I originally said was that wealth distribution is theft - you just extrapolated that to taxation in general, which, as I accepted above, I agree is necessary at a certain level. Wealth distribution is basically a bunch of whiny losers (mostly - obviously there are those that genuinely cannot help themselves) who are jealous of successful people and want to steal more of their money in order to make up for their own deficiencies.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I'm okay with taxes (theft) so long as it's actually important enough to justify destroying lives over if people refuse to pay them. Like for national security, law and order, etc. If someone refuses to pay their fair share for those things, I think it could absolutely be justifiable to punish them. But destroying someone's life because they refuse to pay for your college or your birth control or your abortion or whatever, then it's absolutely unjustifiable and completely immoral.

There are certain public goods that can ONLY be provided by government, such as national defense, traffic control, basic safety regulations, etc. Those could potentially be covered through tariffs but they may very well require a low level of taxation. Beyond this low, minimal level, taxation is outright theft perpetuated by force in order to protect those in power and to make up for their ineptitude - what else do you call it when I work and a quarter of my earnings disappear before I ever see them? We can absolutely shrink our government by a lot, keep the capable people around, and still accomplish everything that needs to be accomplished.

I think I see what you two are trying to say, though I wouldn't describe it as theft, more of an overburdening. To me, using 'theft' in this context carries connotations of being absolutely bad at any degree and you two being ok with a bit of taxation in that kind of regard makes as much sense to me as being ok with a bit of casual torture so long as the victim doesn't die from it.

Of course, that just clarifies some words and takes us back to the other argument that you believe the government should tax for services that only it can provide, whereas I believe the government can and should provide other services and tax higher accordingly.
 
I think I see what you two are trying to say, though I wouldn't describe it as theft, more of an overburdening. To me, using 'theft' in this context carries connotations of being absolutely bad at any degree and you two being ok with a bit of taxation in that kind of regard makes as much sense to me as being ok with a bit of casual torture so long as the victim doesn't die from it.
Not everything is so black and white. Imprisoning people isn't exactly a good thing, but it's certainly not a bad thing if you're locking up rapists and murderers. If you're locking up homosexuals and atheists, it becomes very evil. It all just depends on the details. The who, what, and why all matter.

Of course, that just clarifies some words and takes us back to the other argument that you believe the government should tax for services that only it can provide, whereas I believe the government can and should provide other services and tax higher accordingly.
And what do you propose doing to people who refuse to pay for said services? Take the money by force? Throw them in a concrete jail cell? Both?

That's the crux with government and taxation. It quickly becomes morally questionable.
 
"Theft" certainly sounds harsh but I don't think that "perhaps our government can be a little bit smaller" really gets across. The stronger language tends to get more attention.

In essence, many of us are just fed up with seeing large portions of our hard-earned money get taken from us with little in return, and we don't buy into the left-wing idea of "the greater good".
 
Last edited:
Not everything is so black and white. Imprisoning people isn't exactly a good thing, but it's certainly not a bad thing if you're locking up rapists and murderers. If you're locking up homosexuals and atheists, it becomes very evil. It all just depends on the details. The who, what, and why all matter.

That wasn't meant as some sort of moral soapboxing, I was merely explaining why I asked for clarification at first, given that 'theft' means something peculiar to me and it was altering how I interpreted your statements versus how you later explained them.

And what do you propose doing to people who refuse to pay for said services? Take the money by force? Throw them in a concrete jail cell? Both?

That's the crux with government and taxation. It quickly becomes morally questionable.

Yes, because it seems I view the structure of society and therefore the role of government in it as different from what you do. In the shortest words I can manage thanks to needing to turn in for the night, I do not view taxation as theft of some money I believe I am entitled to so that the government can give it to some bum; rather, more like a fee that I must pay to partake in American society and enjoy the benefits that come with it, one of which is voting for representatives that I believe best reflect my desires. If I don't like what my taxes are going to or in what amount, then I voice displeasure and try to vote for a change. If I really don't like it, then I stop paying the fee and quit the society by renouncing my citizenship and emigrating somewhere else. What I don't do is stop paying the fee but remain in the society, enjoying the benefits without paying in. That needs to be punishable to discourage a smaller tragedy of the commons where society as a whole degrades as people reduce their pay-in.
 
If all you had to do was disagree with something that your tax debt was used for, then nobody would pay taxes. Ever.

I would also love an example of someone's door being kicked in over being a little late with their taxes. It is a whole process to get to that point. Then there is almost always an asshole with a gun telling the people there to seize stuff that it will be over his dead body.

It is also a crime not to pay your taxes, should we make them stand in the corner for a few hours to teach them a lesson? Normally there is no jail time, just a fine.
 
I think you guys are missing the point. Government should exist, so should taxes, so should penalties for not paying taxes. The point is making sure the governments role, it's responsibilities, are important enough to justify those penalties. If the government only handled things that are of vital importance, then we wouldn't have a problem. It's only because they stick their noses into everything that it becomes a moral issue.

Conflating important stuff with meaningless stuff, in order to apply the same penalties is a joke.
 
In this case fair would be at least the same percentage as someone making $100,000 a year. You know it is bad when one of the richest men on the planet talks about the percentage his secretary being higher than his is not right.

Except that he probably still paid more real dollars in one year than his secretary will pay in his/her entire life.


Personally, I'd like to see a flat tax rate with no possible deductions. Whether you earn a hundred dollars a year or a hundred billion, you pay the same percentage. The idea that we can call for other people's tax rates to be increased, but not our own, is ridiculous.

TC, you seem to contradict yourself. The second half of your post seems to indicate that you agree with GRtak - same percentage tax, regardless how much you make. GRtak was outraged by the example of a businessman being taxed at a lower percentage rate than his secretary. Wouldn't you agree he has to be taxed at the same rate as her?
 
Reminds me a bit of this.

the-flat-earth-society-has-members-all-around-the-globe-5751316.png
 
Conflating important stuff with meaningless stuff, in order to apply the same penalties is a joke.

That's where you currently run into problems though, because your taxes are very rarely directly attached to a certain purpose (as to decide whether that's essential or non-essential government spending).

I can understand both your arguments for smaller government (and I agree, spending is slowly but steadily going out of control), but I don't think it can realistically be achieved. I'd be all for making it as effective and efficient as possible, but how do you achieve that? Somehow the same measures that are in place in the free market don't seem to work for public servants...

Also, I have a wildly different view on what is essential government - you'd probably call me a communist :p But then again, I'm from Europe...
 
GRtak was outraged by the example of a businessman being taxed at a lower percentage rate than his secretary.
Uhh no, the rate increases with income. The outrage is over the fact that high earners are sometimes able to lower their taxable income through deductions and, well, accounting. These tax rules are written specifically to allow people (including us, the peons) to deduct certain expenses and for businesses to catch a break - lefties just think that when it's their own income or that of the neighborhood pot dispensary, it's perfectly reasonable to take advantage of these tools, but when it's "the rich" taking advantage of the same tools it's an evil "loophole". It basically comes down to people seriously believing that "the rich" make "too much" and should share the wealth they worked for - a backwards, unfair, unjust, socialist turd of an idea.

- - - Updated - - -

Somehow the same measures that are in place in the free market don't seem to work for public servants...
All the more reason to have smaller government and you do that by cutting out dead weight via the elimination of redundant job positions, as well as entire departments.
 
Uhh no, the rate increases with income. The outrage is over the fact that high earners are sometimes able to lower their taxable income through deductions and, well, accounting. These tax rules are written specifically to allow people (including us, the peons) to deduct certain expenses and for businesses to catch a break - lefties just think that when it's their own income or that of the neighborhood pot dispensary, it's perfectly reasonable to take advantage of these tools, but when it's "the rich" taking advantage of the same tools it's an evil "loophole". It basically comes down to people seriously believing that "the rich" make "too much" and should share the wealth they worked for - a backwards, unfair, unjust, socialist turd of an idea.

You cite no evidence to support what you are saying, except your preconceived notion about what "lefties" believe. More importantly, you are avoiding the argument.

TC said - flat rate, no deductions for anyone (rich or poor). Same percentage tax for everyone.

Or is that not what he said? Those seem to be his exact words. As a "leftie" I don't have a problem with that. Or are you going to tell me what I should think as a "leftie" just so I can fit your mold?
 
Last edited:
Before thinking what is fair in taxes, shouldn't we think about what is fair in earnings? The two are intertwined

If someone got their income from working their a** off day and night and offering their time and effort to help others, even a cent in taxes is too much; if someone got their income from stealing, pillaging and conning people, even 99% would be too low.
 
I can understand both your arguments for smaller government (and I agree, spending is slowly but steadily going out of control), but I don't think it can realistically be achieved. I'd be all for making it as effective and efficient as possible, but how do you achieve that? Somehow the same measures that are in place in the free market don't seem to work for public servants...

As a company you can't just magically turn up your income, especially if you have competitors that sell their products for a smaller price. If there are enough companies that make roughly the same product, the customer gets to choose and each company has to have some sort of selling point, like lowest price, best quality, best value for money etc.

But a government doesn't feel this pressure. At least not to such an extend. The only competition is in the form of other governments, which requires the "customer" to actually move to another country. Ok so the government needs to keep the economy going. But apart from that there is little incentive for a government to be as efficient as possible, since it can control its own income through taxes (to a certain degree).

I used to work in public services in Germany, and almost every time you had to deal with the administration it was a fucking bureaucratic nightmare.

And a friend of mine who works as a teacher tells the same story. For instance the public school he works at gets a certain amount of money each year (from the city, which in turn gets it from the goverment, which gets it from taxes). That amount of money is based on how much they spent the year before. This immediately leads to two things:

1) The school will make damn sure to spent *all* the money by the end of the year, because otherwise it would get less money the next year because some dumb fuck would reason "but you only spent 90.000 ? last year instead of 130.000 ?, so from now on we will only give you 90.000 ?". This means the school will spend money on bullshit it doesn't really need. It just needs to blow some money away.

2) The school can't save up for a couple of years, for instance if it wants to buy something expensive that could not be purchased with one years worth of budget.

While the first point is just tragic, the second is downright stupid because if the school wants to buy something really expensive, they can't save up for it, but instead they need to notify the city council and explain to them what they want to buy. Then the city council does the actual purchase. Nevermind that this means that some uninterested dimwit from the city administration now has to deal with external contractors without knowing all the details. This means that projects get screwed over because the company that gets the contract never actually has any contact with their customer (the school). Instead the company has to deal with a middleman that's probably not awfully interested in getting things absolutely perfect.

And I'm pretty sure there are loads more examples for highly inefficient government administrations and rules that would simply break a company because it would be wasting too much money on administration.
 
CBS news attempts to imply the Chicago torturers were white Trump supporters and the victim was black

https://clyp.it/slitsuox
CBS Radio News said:
The viral video of a beating and knife attack in Chicago suggests the assault had racial overtones. CBS's Dean Reynolds tells us the victim is described as a mentally challenged teenager:

In the video he is choked and repeatedly called the n-word. His clothes are slashed and he is terrorized with a knife. His alleged captors repeatedly reference Donald Trump.

This is why so many people care about ethics in journalism . . . because so many times they've been left speechless at the lack of it.
 
Top