Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I've already been redpilled, remember. Nothing can change my mind at this point.


Also speaking of, Shuiend edited my post so i wanna quote it again:

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Yes. I strongly disapprove of nearly all government regulation of commerce.

Once the government, any government, starts dictating terms as to who may sell what to whom, and at what cost, then you've got a centrally-planned economy. It might not be as strong or as comprehensive as that of, say, the Soviet Union, but you've opened the door. At that point, it's like the joke where the punchline is "We've already established what kind of woman you are, now we're just haggling over the price."



It almost always is.


Also, with regard to my earlier question, how much of my own personal income are you entitled to?

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Full_Tilt_Boogie

iTrader: (1)

The red pill was partially a metaphor for coming to terms with gender identity/sexual orientation
Lana Wachowski | Katy Jon Went

Unfortunately it was co-opted by the incel community who believe that women control the world by being choosy with their sexual partners, and by realizing that, you have become "redpilled". So youre either trans, or youre mad that you cant get laid.



I dont personally want any of your income, I only want you and everybody else to pay some amount of taxes so we can have a society that doesnt look like Mad Max.

Im not certain what the optimal tax rates would be. Perhaps if people and companies could not avoid taxes, the government really could lower your income taxes to zero. Maybe they will call it "trickle up" economics?
I wonder if any influential economists have thought of that...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

dude, no. ******* psycho-babble. Trans people are simply mentally ill, and have body-dysmorphia, and shitty liberal parents, and listen to professors in college.

it's this:





ever looked at a liberal city recently?




But I'm glad you everyone should pay their "fair share". I completely agree the middle-class and rich are over taxed in order to redistribute to the ultra-wealthy, foreign countries, and a few poors.

Full_Tilt_Boogie

iTrader: (1)

You didnt read my link.
This is who made that movie


The metaphor is being used in a way that is almost the antithesis of its intention. I was just trying to get your goat.

So what youre saying is that you want to:



Look at all those exclamation marks. They must really mean it.

good2go

iTrader: (2)

When do we consider that simply raising taxes, regardless of who pays them, will actually not solve the myriad of problems we're promised would be addressed with said revenue. To the contrary, examples abound of the bigger the feeding trough, the bigger the waste/inefficiency/greed/etc. . If we are to be challenged with paying our fair share, shouldn't the government first be challenged with demonstrating due diligence? I think it's just magical thinking to believe increased revenue automatically fixes things. Quit demanding that a fair share be paid until a fair share of results can honestly be expected from it.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

...and both republicans and democrats always say: Every seen the movie ideocracy?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

meanwhile:

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

very fair:


lining pockets never helped the poors; never will.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

No, I'm saying I want to abolish the practice of theft under the guise of good will. I'm vindictive, evil, mean-spirited, nor interested in class warfare like you are.

We've been taxing Americans since 1913, and guess what...

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Do you see how the two halves of this sentence directly contradict one another?

I suppose one could draw a semantic distinction between "I don't want to take your money" and "I want other people to take your money," but I don't see that distinction being very meaningful.




It's funny that you use this specific analogy. The society depicted in Mad Max was the direct results of overly-large governments. (reference: The Road Warrior, opening monologue.)

But I get what you are saying. Humans are not capable of acting in a civil, productive manner unless they are forced to pay money to a government.

I don't agree.

There is plenty of evidence to show that having a large, powerful government does not prevent certain types of people from being uncivil.

Look at Portland, Oregon as one example. Their top-tier individual income tax rate is 51.6% (37% federal tax + 9.9% state tax + 4.7% city tax) and yet this is what Portland looks like:





What would the mechanism of action be by which taxing the residents of Portland even more would solve the problems graphically depicted above?

z31maniac

www.fairtax.org

Diamond Dave

if anyone can admit to voting for this idiot, can you please explain why he continually acts like other people are controlling him? For the leader of the most powerful country on the planet, I find his comments of “I’ll get in trouble” or “they’ll get mad at me” to be disturbing.

Diamond Dave

FYI, those riots happen nightly here in Portland. A better picture would be the invasive population of homeless, whose tents line the sidewalks and freeways of the inner city.

#failuretown

poormxdad

I didn't know where else to post this. Here's an excerpt from an email I received from the BMW Club:

With the above considerations in mind, along with a strong desire to get back to in-car instruction, we will require all Student and Instructor participants in the June HPDS to have been fully vaccinated. Final dose must be administered by June 12th, 14 days prior to the start of in-car instruction. We will require proof of vaccination uploaded to MotorSportReg. More details on the upload process will follow, but you will be denied access to the June HPDS if you cannot provide proof of your final shot by June 12th. If you’ve lost your vaccination card, contact your state or local health department ASAP to get a copy of your COVID vaccination record.

I had no plans on getting a vaccine. This particular email does not change my mind as I had not planned to attend that event, but I suspect other clubs will do the same.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

15 days.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

A lot of words, and TL;DR.

Why is it inherently "bad" for "rich people to hoard wealth"? That sounds like the opinion of someone who doesn't understand how money works.

If we conduct a mutual exchange where I give you a loaf of bread and you give me $5, we should both be better off. After all, you wanted the loaf of bread more than you wanted the $5, and I wanted the $5 more than I wanted the loaf of bread, otherwise, we wouldn't have agreed to the mutual exchange. We are both better off than we were before this transaction.

So, now that I have $5, what should I do with that $5? In most circumstances, I'm going to trade that $5 for something that is worth more than $5 to me. I'm going to assume that we agree this is how exchange works.

What actually happened though? I had something valuable (a loaf of bread) and I gave it to you in exchange for something which holds no value except to facilitate trade. I can't bathe in this $5, I can't drive this $5 to a friends house, I can't protect myself from the weather with this $5, and I can't eat this $5 (well, perhaps I could, but it would be a terribly inefficient way to get nutrition). The $5 merely allows me to demand something of value from someone else; I can use it to pay my water bill, or put gas in my car, or pay my mortgage payment, or perhaps even buy a loaf of bread - basically, because I gave you a loaf of bread, now someone else might choose to give me an old fashioned. The $5 is merely a note telling the bartender that "I gave something of value to someone else earlier (me benefitting society), so now you can give me something else of equivalent value (society benefitting me)"

What if, instead, I decide that I want to hold onto this $5, and keep it to myself, and never let anyone else have this $5? Well that seems to be the predicament we're in: I'm going to hoard this $5 until I die. I benefitted society by giving society a loaf of bread today, and now I'm effectively *deferring* society's responsibility to return the value to me. The Popeye character "Wimpy" said "I'll gladly pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger today", reasonable people see that as an objectionable request specifically because he's looking to receive value that he has not yet earned. If asking for something before you've earned it is bad, then the opposite certainly must be true: "Not asking for something until long after you've earned it is good".

Burning the money would have an even more postiive societal impact: I've given value to society, and now I forgive them of any debt for that value.

Profit is my next point: Profit is a direct, exact, and quantifiable measurement of the value provided to society. We say we want to tax the **** out of people who make millions or tens of millions of dollars in profit because "they don't need that much money", but the only reason they cleared $17 million in profits last year was because *they provided $17 million as a direct benefit to society*. Question: Why do we have such a hard-on for taxing the ever-loving crap out of the people who contribute the most to our society?

Children is my last point: What is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything? It's not "Children", it's "42", and I have no idea why. But the meaning of life, just by itself, is effectively: "to reproduce and provide the greatest possible chance of success to your offspring". There were species over the last umpteen million years which did not subscribe to my meaning of life, and they are all extinct. We survive because as a species (with some exceptions), we have an instinctive drive to do these two things. In a society where a select few of us have the freedom and ability to generate unimaginable value and effectively defer the return of that value until some point in our children's lives or our grandchildren's lives, we would be going against two hundred thousand years of instincts to not do exactly that. Children of people who made stupid amounts of money do not typically go on themselves to make stupid amounts of money. If one in 2,500 people are making $10 million per year, then the chance that their children will do the same is approximately one in 2,500. Therefore, the greatest possible chance of their "success" (as assumed by their rich parents) lies in giving them enough money that they'll never have to work a day in their lives. Because we are programmed as humans to attain the "meaning of life", removing people's ability to grant value to their children would probably have disastrous social consequences, probably not quite as bad as the movie Children of Men (2006), but definitely heading in that direction.

Also, children of stupidly rich people not only don't create value at the same rate as their parents, they also blow through their parents value at stupidly fast rates, with 70% of families going broke in two generations, and 90% going broke in three. I guess if you didn't earn the value you have, you tend to not appreciate it nearly as much. Don't worry, though, it's not like we're suddenly going to run out of money our medium of exchange simply because some old geezer is sitting on his cash, and people aren't suddenly not going to be able to get their own loaves of bread because of this guy - remember, he already gave those loaves of bread away.
https://money.com/rich-families-lose-wealth/

In summary: if some dude has eleventy billion dollars, it's their eleventy billion dollars, not yours. Go sell someone a loaf of bread and get your own, and be patient while dude's children hastily return those eleventy billion dollars to society after he dies.



profits = good

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Envy.

Assume that you have a room with two children in it. Both are content.

Now you give an ice cream cone to one of the children.

This increases the happiness of one child, but decreases the happiness of the other, despite the fact that child #2 is in no different a situation than they were previously.

This same effect occurs on a macroeconomic scale as well.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Democrats: The party of creating laws to criminalize the people who unfailingly vote for you every single time.