Pages:
Author

Topic: Why are people scared of taxes? - page 40. (Read 31542 times)

legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 2267
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
October 08, 2012, 11:01:52 PM
#83
fantastic

guess who's reading A.S.


*shrug*? Not me. It's on my "I really must get around to reading that someday when I don't have paint to watch dry"
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
October 08, 2012, 04:56:20 PM
#82
I'm not scared of taxes, I just want to be able to choose to self-insure, pick which charity I give out, and pay things that are necessary to function in my life as the need arises.

Some people don't want the hassle of making all those decisions. I don't understand why they hire enforcers who point guns at me when I don't want to join their "union". Who taught them to be so mean to their neighbors?
legendary
Activity: 2562
Merit: 1441
October 08, 2012, 04:51:42 PM
#81
Because they consume 50% - 70% of your income?  

(...When you add them all together..)



 Huh
420
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 500
October 08, 2012, 04:47:35 PM
#80
fantastic

guess who's reading A.S.
legendary
Activity: 3122
Merit: 1538
yes
October 08, 2012, 04:43:42 PM
#79

Keynesianism has been all that people have been allowed to hear for a long time but the internet is bringing other models to the arena for inspection.


I think a lot of young educated adults are very much aware of the current financial system and its flaws. They will - at some time - be the new leaders. Let's have it  Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 2267
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
October 08, 2012, 04:39:08 PM
#78
I'll just make an open-ended question: Is society only defined by how much can be consumed in a day?

Keynes is on his way out. It'll take a while but the buds of Austrianism are starting to show through.

in the mainstream media somewhere? where besides fox business

The BBC?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b012wxyg/Keynes_Vs._Hayek/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01n2rpx

Let's not forget the current resurgence of Atlas Shrugged (with a second movie about to come out).

Keynesianism has been all that people have been allowed to hear for a long time but the internet is bringing other models to the arena for inspection.
420
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 500
October 08, 2012, 04:27:19 PM
#77
I'll just make an open-ended question: Is society only defined by how much can be consumed in a day?

Keynes is on his way out. It'll take a while but the buds of Austrianism are starting to show through.

in the mainstream media somewhere? where besides fox business
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 2267
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
October 08, 2012, 04:11:13 PM
#76

Ah, but give the poor a small stipend, and the majority of it will be spent, while a rich man would save it. In practice, it didn't work too well. We tried handing out money to everyone under Bush. That stimulus was lackluster.

For spent, read wasted. For save, read invest (It's possible to hoard gold or bitcoins but where do you think dollars go?).

legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 2267
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
October 08, 2012, 04:09:30 PM
#75
I'll just make an open-ended question: Is society only defined by how much can be consumed in a day?

Keynes is on his way out. It'll take a while but the buds of Austrianism are starting to show through.
jr. member
Activity: 56
Merit: 1
October 08, 2012, 02:58:16 PM
#74
I'll leave you one, too. Is the power of a government exactly equal to the military force it controls?
There is a level of social influence that a government possesses but the ends of that is just willing citizenry enforcing its rule.

The power of government is exactly its ability to enforce its territory and laws.
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
October 08, 2012, 02:54:29 PM
#73
I'll leave you one, too. Is the power of a government exactly equal to the military force it controls?
jr. member
Activity: 56
Merit: 1
October 08, 2012, 02:53:02 PM
#72
I'll just make an open-ended question: Is society only defined by how much can be consumed in a day?
420
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 500
October 08, 2012, 02:49:54 PM
#71

its more convenient to pay taxes [...]

So other people should be coerced, with threat of force, to pay for your convenience. Gotcha.


wow, why would you support force on people?

I'm not the one advocating taxes.

saying its more convenient is not advocating taxes or force

just pointing out

i dont like force
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
October 08, 2012, 02:46:53 PM
#70
If the poor have no security net they will save as much as possible of their income for a rainy day.
Yes, the poor should feel free to waste their money on alcohol, lottery tickets, drugs and other consumable crud because everyone else will pick up the tab later.
No, they have to pay for that themselves.  (Alcohol is a good candidate for extra taxation, and drugs which are bad for them should be illegal, but that is another story.)  And that is the point.  If they are able to pay for that stuff, the whole economy benefits.  If only the rich are able to buy chocolate, you don't need many chocolate factories.  The rich people aren't going to eat more chocolate when they become richer.  The solution is to enable the poor to consume more.  This makes the economy grow and everyone's wealth increases.

Broken Window Fallacy.

Ah, but give the poor a small stipend, and the majority of it will be spent, while a rich man would save it. In practice, it didn't work too well. We tried handing out money to everyone under Bush. That stimulus was lackluster.
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 2267
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
October 08, 2012, 02:37:09 PM
#69
If the poor have no security net they will save as much as possible of their income for a rainy day.
Yes, the poor should feel free to waste their money on alcohol, lottery tickets, drugs and other consumable crud because everyone else will pick up the tab later.
No, they have to pay for that themselves.  (Alcohol is a good candidate for extra taxation, and drugs which are bad for them should be illegal, but that is another story.)  And that is the point.  If they are able to pay for that stuff, the whole economy benefits.  If only the rich are able to buy chocolate, you don't need many chocolate factories.  The rich people aren't going to eat more chocolate when they become richer.  The solution is to enable the poor to consume more.  This makes the economy grow and everyone's wealth increases.

Broken Window Fallacy.
legendary
Activity: 1437
Merit: 1002
https://bitmynt.no
October 08, 2012, 01:54:06 PM
#68
If the poor have no security net they will save as much as possible of their income for a rainy day.
Yes, the poor should feel free to waste their money on alcohol, lottery tickets, drugs and other consumable crud because everyone else will pick up the tab later.
No, they have to pay for that themselves.  (Alcohol is a good candidate for extra taxation, and drugs which are bad for them should be illegal, but that is another story.)  And that is the point.  If they are able to pay for that stuff, the whole economy benefits.  If only the rich are able to buy chocolate, you don't need many chocolate factories.  The rich people aren't going to eat more chocolate when they become richer.  The solution is to enable the poor to consume more.  This makes the economy grow and everyone's wealth increases.
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
October 08, 2012, 01:53:09 PM
#67


Yes, the poor should feel free to waste their money on alcohol, lottery tickets, drugs and other consumable crud because everyone else will pick up the tab later.

We all have an infinite amount of wealth and labor to lift up somebody who consumes and consumes while producing nothing,

I took this as a direct implication that the poor can and will 'waste their money on alcohol, lottery tickets, drugs and other consumable crud'. If it wasn't meant as such, I apologize, but to me that seems like a comment made in ignorance and stereotyping.
jr. member
Activity: 56
Merit: 1
October 08, 2012, 01:22:13 PM
#66
They still haven't sent out any sorts of rovers or exploratory satellites, which are my specific areas of interest, along with colonies. I'd be perfectly happy to work at a private company if they offered better pay and a comparative goals, as well as a doctorate program. I just like NASA better, because it isn't focused on a profit. Private space companies have to offer a revenue generating service as their primary concern. If there are companies that are research oriented, please give me a link and I'll look into them. I'm always open to new companies I can apply for an internship at.

Imagine how they might be doing if the economy hadn't been hideously burdened by an overgrown parasite which, besides spending a trivially small proportion of its income on mars rovers and whatnot, pissed most of it away on pointless crap. Don't miss the wood for the trees.

Also, Wow Atlas, way to stereotype out the ass there.

Yes, the poor will almost always act as model citizens and not use welfare as insurance against being indefinitely idle.

There are plenty that do, but I know a lot of people below the poverty line, my highschool had a large number of children from these family. Most of them absolutely despised having to take welfare or any support whatsoever. I think more of them would agree with your statements on taxation than any other demographic. Being poor doesn't mean they're lazy.
I have never directly criticized the poor. It seems that way but I am merely mocking the idea that nobody should have to prepare themselves for a rainy day.
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
October 08, 2012, 01:20:05 PM
#65
They still haven't sent out any sorts of rovers or exploratory satellites, which are my specific areas of interest, along with colonies. I'd be perfectly happy to work at a private company if they offered better pay and a comparative goals, as well as a doctorate program. I just like NASA better, because it isn't focused on a profit. Private space companies have to offer a revenue generating service as their primary concern. If there are companies that are research oriented, please give me a link and I'll look into them. I'm always open to new companies I can apply for an internship at.

Imagine how they might be doing if the economy hadn't been hideously burdened by an overgrown parasite which, besides spending a trivially small proportion of its income on mars rovers and whatnot, pissed most of it away on pointless crap. Don't miss the wood for the trees.

Also, Wow Atlas, way to stereotype out the ass there.

Yes, the poor will almost always act as model citizens and not use welfare as insurance against being indefinitely idle.

There are plenty that do, but I know a lot of people below the poverty line, my highschool had a large number of children from these family. Most of them absolutely despised having to take welfare or any support whatsoever. I think more of them would agree with your statements on taxation than any other demographic. Being poor doesn't mean they're lazy.
jr. member
Activity: 56
Merit: 1
October 08, 2012, 01:13:38 PM
#64
They still haven't sent out any sorts of rovers or exploratory satellites, which are my specific areas of interest, along with colonies. I'd be perfectly happy to work at a private company if they offered better pay and a comparative goals, as well as a doctorate program. I just like NASA better, because it isn't focused on a profit. Private space companies have to offer a revenue generating service as their primary concern. If there are companies that are research oriented, please give me a link and I'll look into them. I'm always open to new companies I can apply for an internship at.

Imagine how they might be doing if the economy hadn't been hideously burdened by an overgrown parasite which, besides spending a trivially small proportion of its income on mars rovers and whatnot, pissed most of it away on pointless crap. Don't miss the wood for the trees.

Also, Wow Atlas, way to stereotype out the ass there.

Yes, the poor will almost always act as model citizens and not use welfare as insurance against being indefinitely idle.
Pages:
Jump to: