Shouldn't you be able to answer questions about how you envision the tax code changing? After all, it's your vision. And yes, you spoke out of context or you misread and missed the word "significant". I don't need to define it to prove that it's relevant. By definition, it's relevant. In any case, use your common sense. If "X" activity suddenly becomes taxed at a significantly higher rate, that'll deter "X" activity. Does you really need evidence to believe this? And in regards to continuing in the conversation, based on your answer regarding capital gains, it doesn't matter to me if you want to continue the conversation or not. It's not like I'd learn anything from you, and if you're so condescending about a simple thought experiment, then it'd just be a waste of my time.
Unrelated off-topic. Apologies. How do you believe people relate to your discussion when you post things like this? What do you think their opinion of your posts are? Do you feel your "thought experiment's" provoke a fertile ground for deeper thought and relevant exploration of a topic?
I really don't care since the discussion was over. He was rude to me so I was rude back. Up until then, I felt like we were having an amicable discussion. In a discussion, I'm never the first one to be rude. The "thought experiment" was simply exploring his perspective and seeing if it held water. I didn't expect him to get snarky about it. And no, I don't think these thought experiments will lead anywhere because people on this board tend to understand things at the most superficial level. People get too caught up in how things should be without understanding the steps needed to get there.
I agree with you my hypothetical was a stretch lol, But if it happened one time to an innocent soul then I would be concerned that it could happen twice or tenfold or so on..Granted I definitely agree with you it’s not a explanation of exactly what happened by far and I’m sure there might have been evidence that was maybe more of a issue but let’s hope it stops there
first, i want to see the Alternative Minimum Tax be re-instated, to rectify / lessen the pain, income tax wise, that orange hair had inflicted on the bottom 90%
the latest dodging tactic by one who lacks the understanding of the subject matter this was the topic starter
Objectivism and libertarianism have a lot in common. I don't agree with the atheism inherent in objectivism, but the idea of the primacy of the individual and the opposition to people being forced to subsidize others are strong overlaps. Not all people, but some. You will see them a lot if you are on the internet (especially twitter and reddit). People that think there is no legitimate profit. People that talk about eating the rich. People that call for a socialist revolution. Wanting a progressive tax system is just asking to hurt me, though there may not be animosity behind it. I never said I support sales taxes. Taxation is the involuntary taking of the property of another by threat of future consequences. It is done largely to pay for things the taxpayer has no interest in paying for. If a private citizen did exactly the same thing, they would go The inflation shouldn't be blamed on Biden either. He isn't I don't care for permanent solutions to temporary problems. If there is a world war, do something that only lasts for the duration of said war. The government has no business dealing with a depression, the market will sort it out. There are also those who say that the New Deal was a failure (including FDR's own Treasury Secretary). A lot of legal slavery in the United States in the 1920s? When was the 13th Amendment ratified in your version of the United States?
Are you going to use the same logic when talking about inflation or anything negative that happened while Biden has been president? Did you not blame him for gas prices being high?
You’ve overthought yourself into a weird, sad little box. I asked earlier why you just don’t go off grid, you’d have all the primacy you wanted. Also, you wouldn’t have to live in society.
That question was asked, and It's why Biden is now president, and he has a Democratic Senate and house. Currently, Democrats are more popular than Republicans, so again it seems the question has been asked and answered. 1. Rising partisan antipathy; widening party gap in presidential ... https://www.pewresearch.org › politics › 2022/08/09 Aug 9, 2022 — About six-in-ten U.S. adults (61%) have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party, with nearly as many (57%) holding a negative view of ...
As someone who’s been seemingly randomly stopped by LEO, once while walking in my own neighborhood, yes there can be abuses by LEO but that is again why we have rights and it’s important we all know them. As with the “Defund the Police” debate we have to be very careful about hyperbolic reactions when it comes to things regarding public safety. So yes I fully accept that the FBI can and has done things that violate individual rights a that doesn’t mean we should get rid of the FBI. Just like Derek Chauvin did murder George Floyd that doesn’t mean I supported getting rid of the MPD.
I agree the FBI does not need to be defunded that’s sillysauce but I’m open to restructuring because misgivings and mistakes at the city level is one thing but at the federal level - You are supposed to be the brightest and best and I would expect a higher level of conduct professionalism and minimal errors
Sure there are people who talk about “eating the rich” that doesn’t mean they represent even a plurality of people who make less than you. Believing that a progressive tax system is because of hate and that people are out to hurt you is frankly paranoid. Perhaps I missed remembered you saying your were for sales taxes if so then I apologize. You did say you were for tariffs which are also taxes. That said the flaw in your argument is how you determine what is in the individual instance. For example having a fire department. I could argue that my house is safe and I have sprinklers and other fire suppression measures so I shouldn’t have to pay for a fire department. The problem is that if there is a massive fire or some other disaster like a flood my sprinkles won’t be able to stop that in that case I will need a fire department to rescue me. For that matter even if my house is safe my place of work could catch on fire, the stores I shops at, or any other structures that I deal with. Now I could just privately hire a fire fighters and a fire truck but that would be prohibitively expensive for an individual. As such it is better and in my communities interest to pay for a fire department. That is only one example. There are multiple other examples. Now I think it’s a fair argument about what value we are getting for our taxes and how much we are paying for taxes but in principle taxes are not theft.
I would take the FBI’s record post Hoover regarding individual rights far more than I would MPD’s. The “bias” you argue pales in comparison to the bias that was found in MPD and in many other PD’s that actually resulted in the deaths of people in custody. That is far more serious than one lawyer who went rogue and a couple of agents that had an affair.
Asking me to pay more is hurting me financially. Asking for things which will cause inflation is hurting me financially. It isn't paranoia, it is fact. No worries. You can also, alternatively, have volunteer fire departments, fire departments that are voluntarily funded by the community, corporate sponsored fire departments, and probably other alternatives that I haven't even thought of. Just because the government does something now, doesn't mean the government is needed to do that thing. In fact, fire departments have been all of those things in the past and there are more volunteer fire departments in the United States than there are government fire departments. Why would I want to go off the grid? I enjoy commerce and wouldn't want to do everything on my own when we have many great goods and services available for trade. I don't want to abandon modernity, I want to have voluntary participation. Not only would I use the same logic, I did in the very same post you quoted (though part of it got cut off somehow). I would say the majority of the inflation we are seeing is a result of the pandemic response that began under Trump. At both the state and federal level, huge sums of money were dumped into the population for nothing. Increasing demand while reducing supply through lockdowns and restrictions, inflation was guaranteed to result.
