It is, by the tenets of what libertarianism is, as per the definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
https://www.britannica.com/topic/lib...anism-politics
Then you most likely will not be impacted.
Here, I've edited in the bolded part since you are unable to read past your own perception.
Dudemeister, our wealthy are also taxed higher than yours. I mean, what part of "overall higher tax rates" didn't you get? Of course, I'm starting where it has less impact on the person's life because that means also less impact on society and the market.
I thought we were talking about 2-3% to pay down the debt? No? Did you just move the goalpost midargument to score imaginary points?
No, you have proposed to halt spending increases and hope that the government becomes more efficient. Don't be mad at me because your numbers don't add up.
That's the thing, it's not just about my liberties, it's about theirs as well. You may not give a shit about them, but I do.
As for your claim, I copied you word for word, so don't blame me, because you cannot back up your bullshit.
That 2-3% per year was just to get closer to a balanced budget, and doesn't even get us to the point of paying down chunks of the +$20 trillion debt. That's how big of a fucking hole we're in. I'm not moving goalposts, this has been what i said all along.
My numbers do add up, and they were provided. You want the wealthy to just pay more... while not being willing to pay more yourself. I asked you how much more you'd be willing to pay, and you directed me back to your comment that the wealthy would pay for it.
So, if you care to tell me what country you live in, and what percentage of your total income goes into federal income tax (the comparison may be tough, because the United States also has SS taxes, Medicare taxes, and others. Surely, if it's more, then you should have no problem with those earning the same as you in this country paying more to meet that... right?
- - - Updated - - -
You read 11k words, and also responded with your own comment in a minute?
Interesting.
I never claimed Block as an influence, so I have no reason to disown the dude. I barely know who he is.
Is this like the hour long videos of Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson totes DESTROYING some progressive? I'll pass.
Last edited by Machismo; 2021-04-17 at 03:32 PM.
He was not a proponent of anarchism. Rothbard was actually in favor of a huge state mechanism to enforce property rights he just wanted it done privately.
- - - Updated - - -
it is not anarchism. it is as far removed from anarchy as neo liberalism is. In fact its probably closer to neo liberalism.
- - - Updated - - -
The movement goes back to proudhon who is the father of all socialist and ultimately anarchist thought. Anarchism is rightly viewed as a part of the wider socialist movement. Indeed proudhon famously stated that all property was theft. How you can go from that to ancaps and still call them anarchist is orwellian levels of double think.
No, you didn't. Stop lying. I mean, everyone but you can read.
Ok, so I am more ambitious than you are.
You never provided numbers for how many people would lose their job, how companies would be impacted. You presented a simple solution without ever talking about the consequences. Don't be mad if I do something you're doing all the fucking time. My solution just makes more sense despite being simple, because people wouldn't lose their job.
Lol, we have universal healthcare and a bunch of other things you've probably never heard of.
Here are our countries compared to each other, go crazy:
https://countryeconomy.com/countries...ia/usa?sc=XE74
Do you want to know how good we are doing? People pay us to lend us money. We're reducing debt by borrowing money.
You said:
I have asked for evidence how this is the case, and I cannot seem to find it. I have searched for quantifiable evidence that they do.
If you are "more ambitious" then you are impacting far more jobs than those you claim would be lost by simply freezing spending. The basis for jobs being lost... is your fucking argument, so the burden is on you. Feel free to provide it at your nearest convenience.
As for the national comparison, I love some of the start differences. But, that doesn't actually cover taxation and tax rates... which was the point of comparison. The section titled "Personal income tax for employees Austria vs United States comparison" is blank. Do you see anything in that section?
- - - Updated - - -
I provided the definitions of the words, so that's not really my problem. I never cited that due as an influence, and have stated I barely know who he is.
Yeah, see how I wrote "society and government"? I then proceeded with how the wealthy profit more from society. I mean, if you can't connect the dots I am sorry, but why the fuck do I know more about how the funding of public shit and stuff works in your country than you do?
Bullshit, if you'd have you'd find how public schools are funded and from that alone would've had your answer.
Yeah, because if people have to pay more taxes they also want to reduce their income on top of that. Right now you are in trickle-down bullshit territory, please don't tell me you believe that.
You want to reduce money spent by the government because apart from halting inflation and stopping births, freezing spending will lead to reduced spending, which in turn means people and companies get less. You know, less demand usually leads to job losses.
Do I have to click on links for you? Scroll down to taxes.
So, you have no evidence that they benefit more from government? That's good enough for me, I'll take that retraction. If you cannot argue that they benefit more, then trying to argue they should be the ones to pay for it... falls on its face.
Once again, this is your claim, so the burden of evidence falls to you.
Yes, I do want less government... this has been something I have argued for a very long time. This shouldn't surprise you in any way.
To be clear, you think Americans earning the same should be paying more, so as to pay the same as you? I just want to be clear on that. Or, if they are paying the same, then, I go back to the question I asked you earlier, and that would be... how much more would you be willing to pay out of that very, very large sum? In the end, this either means you think people earning what you earn (I have no idea what that is) should pay more, or you get to answer my question. Either way, I'm happy!!!
Edit: I want to note that the top section of the comparison site did show up for me when I closed it 0out, and re-opened.
Last edited by Machismo; 2021-04-17 at 04:33 PM.
So, no hard sources but some examples. Affluent people generally use roads and infrastructure more. This is a thing where they gain value.
If you run any form of business you benefit from infrastructure that brings you customers. Yes, the customers benefit as well, but you get compounded benefits.
Free primary education gives you a better educated work force, which is cheaper for you since you'll have a higher baseline of employees to employ. Instead of having to pay to train simple litteracy and counting. (Can be scaled up to include university and trade schooling). The induvidual gain, but so does absolutely someone running a business.
This is the nature of things where the wealthy and affluent gain more from the government than those down on their luck.
Food Stamps? Yes, lets poor people buy food at market prices. But it also inflates market prices and lets the wealthy set higher prices and make more money by being subsidised by the government.
And yes, here you could say "just remove them and the market will fix itself!" However history has shown that before any such fix would happen violence would happen. It's only possible to remove this kind of aid if you at the same time implement and enforce price controls or higher wages.
- Lars
That's the problem, this is a claim that is littered with nothing more that guess work.
Shall we look at tax dollars being spent at the federal level? Since the biggest shares go to Social Security and Medicare, that doesn't seem like something that is heavily in favor of the wealthy. This is especially true, since business owners pay for half of all of that, the employees the other half.
The other big share is the Defense Budget. That's where some wealthy definitely benefit, mainly through huge government contracts. But, they pay corporate taxes, as well as income taxes.
All those other things are not going to the wealthy, but to everyone. Education being free at the primary level, is for everyone who receives that education. That's not some gift to the wealthy. The more education you include, the more that helps the people who are not wealthy, and goes against the narrative. The same goes for unemployment, welfare, and most of the rest, as far as I can tell.
That's the problem that I see, the claim just really doesn't hold water, when you look into it.
Edit: I want to specifically thank you for posing a reasonable argument that wasn't dripping with vitriol. Even though I disagree with the point you made, it is a valid argument.
I'll just counter the bold bit, since it's so outrageously wrong.
Employers having access to educated potential employes benefit them to crazy levels.
Imagine having only access to 5-10% of the US population with any advanced level of literacy. Imagine having to pay to educate anyone you want to employ unless they are from a rich enough background.
How doesn't public education benefit employers?
- Lars
You are hitting on a major point, how difficult it is to quantify who benefits the most. That's why I questioned the statement that the wealthy benefitting more being a fact, as it is extremely difficult to prove.
I think the United States government has done a terrible disservice to the young people in this country, by not focusing on vocational training. I also think that life skills aren't really addressed. Of course, thats another conversation for a different day.
Circling back, I absolutely get the push to simply tax the wealthy to solve the problem. But, what that doesn't do, is give people an appreciation for how much things cost, and what "community" actually means. I don't begrudge the wealthy for having more. Not all wealthy people wear a top had and monocle, and hideously cackle at the idea of screwing over poor people.
The three wealthiest people I have personally known (that come to mind) are/were decent people. One was a rancher who worked his ass off until the week he died. He was worth over 50 million, and if you'd have met him, you'd think he was just another shit-kicking cowboy. Another was a small-town realtor, who didn't even know how wealthy he was. His wife gets to take credit for all of it. She scrimped and saved, and invested their money for years. One day, in their 60's she dropped the bomb on him, that they were richer than shit. The last was a girl whose family made her work at the restaurant that they owned, because they wanted to make sure she had work ethic. I had known her for 3 years (very loosely, knew the mom more), before I found out how much they were worth.
The bottom line, the wealthy are people, too.
libertarians are a danger to any society and should be classified as extremists and be locked up because their twisted ideology would lead to the deaths of millions, if not billions.
hey machismo all wealth belongs to society not individuals and all wealth is made by society not individuals.