Why stop at 10% then? Why not 20%, 50%, or 99.9% since that would give millions more the "freedom" to retire early?
World to Lithium. Taxes are not theft.
But someone who has more money than they can spend in a lifetime is not going to be impacted as negatively from losing $400 than someone living paycheck to paycheck will benefit from $400.
Also, the rich mostly own assets, whose prices are determined by ability of other rich people to bid for those assets. So if you tax all rich people extra 10%, they may bid 10% less for a house, Ferrari or a painting, but have no fear, those houses, Ferraris and paintings will still be owned by those rich people. It will make absolutely zero difference in their lifestyle.
For the mind-numblingly obvious reason that because something is good in moderation doesn't make it good in its absolute extreme.Why stop at 10% then? Why not 20%, 50%, or 99.9% since that would give millions more the "freedom" to retire early?
You should call the cops to report this "theft" when you see a paycheck tax deduction, they'll explain to you how it works.
You live in and enjoy the benefits of society, so you have to pay your share. Poor little you!Can you delegate a right that you don't have (see above) to another person? example: give permission to bob to steal from alice. <hint: no>
Can two or more people get together and delegate a right that they do not have to a third party? example: the whole neighborhood gives bob permission to alice. <hint: no>
Nothing's preventing you from renouncing your US citizenship and no longer dealing with US businesses, in which case you won't have to pay any taxes to the US at all.So then where does congress get the right to take money by force from people to pay for things they've dreamed up? OHHHHHH there are some signatures on a piece of paper that gave someone "authority" to some people who delegated rights they didn't have who delegated it further to people that didn't have the right. My signature isn't on that paper, nor any subsequent paper giving someone the right to my earnings. It's not voluntary therefore it's illegitimate.
Again, it being a "good thing" depends on which side of the transfer payment you're on. You want to focus on what you see as the good (couldn't afford to retire previously) without acknowledging the cost to others to allow that to happen. You just wave it away as being just one more thing "the rich" won't notice because to you, anyone other than the recipient of your generosity is rich and simply a source for money. You simply make a rationalization "well, that's one less yacht they can afford to buy" and glorify the "better uses" you're putting the money to.
For the mind-numblingly obvious reason that because something is good in moderation doesn't make it good in its absolute extreme.
Some flouride in your water helps your teeth. Lots of flouride in your water would kill you.
Some water throughout the day is necessary to live. Drink enough water and you will die.
Etc.
You live in and enjoy the benefits of society, so you have to pay your share. Poor little you!
And yes, people can give the neighborhood association the right to money from Alice (fees) if that's part of the contract for the house / deed to the property. Likewise, the Constitution gives the government power to tax.
You live in and enjoy the benefits of society, so you have to pay your share. Poor little you!
And yes, people can give the neighborhood association the right to money from Alice (fees) if that's part of the contract for the house / deed to the property. Likewise, the Constitution gives the government power to tax.
Nothing's preventing you from renouncing your US citizenship and no longer dealing with US businesses, in which case you won't have to pay any taxes to the US at all.
But he didn't personally consent to the Constitution so that makes him a slave.
OK, so 10% is the perfect moderate amount, good to know. Guess all the extra people you could have helped with 11% instead are just shit outta luck. Glad to know the yacht purchases of the rich aren't in jeopardy and there will still be lots of poor working schmoes not able to retire that the rich will still be able to look down upon.
You signed it every time you did business with a company that can't screw you because of taxpayer-funded laws, drove on taxpayer-funded roads, weren't robbed because of taxpayer-funded police, ate safe food because of taxpayer-funded regulation.i didn't sign the social contract.
If you achieve sovereignty, yes, that's right. How else do you think nations happen? The legitimacy of the US Constitution comes from history, having gotten recognized by other nations after a long struggle, just like every other nation that every existed. If you were in North Korea, you would have to deal with that government. If you were in Somalia, you would have to deal with the perils of life without a stable government as lots of people are going just what you're describing, making their own constitutions.so if i took a piece of paper and wrote a constitution with my friends, i could come and force you to pay us? what gives legitimacy to the US constitution any more than mine? i never met the people who signed it, i don't know them. i don't know the people who enforce the laws. . .
But he didn't personally consent to the Constitution so that makes him a slave.
Why, it's almost as if there's a whole range of possible amounts, each with their own drawbacks and benefits, and the trick is to adjust the amount until we find the best possible middle ground! And since circumstances change over time, you might even think that the optimal taxation brackets can change, and rather than believing something childish like 'more taxes are always bad' or 'more taxes are always good'!
Really? Last time I checked, slaves weren't free to leave their masters when ever they wished.
Don't like the rules? Then petition their change like everyone else or get the fuck out! Until then you will obey the rules or suffer the consequences.
Another unamerican piece of trash! A slave who has the freedom to post shit freely on a medium created by his master.
A slave? Holy fuck you people are retarded!
Really? Last time I checked, slaves weren't free to leave their masters when ever they wished.
Don't like the rules? Then petition their change like everyone else or get the fuck out! Until then you will obey the rules or suffer the consequences.
Another unamerican piece of trash! A slave who has the freedom to post shit freely on a medium created by his master.
A slave? Holy fuck you people are retarded!
Why, it's almost as if there's a whole range of possible amounts, each with their own drawbacks and benefits, and the trick is to adjust the amount until we find the best possible middle ground! And since circumstances change over time, you might even think that the optimal taxation brackets can change, and rather than believing something childish like 'more taxes are always bad' or 'more taxes are always good'!
Or 'higher participation rates are always good'.
You know, they say computers haven't been able to match the brain powers of humans because computers are only capable of computing in 1's & 0's, on or off, but apparently they are getting closer. I wonder if computers are getting more powerful or humans are getting dumber is the reason for computers to be getting closer to emulating the human brain. The answer used to seem simple but with posters like Glenn and others and their black and white mentality, the answer doesn't seem so easy any more.
more victim blaming..
so women unfortunate enough to be born in countries with sharia law should just obey and suffer or just leave? where are they going to go?
you mean using logic and rational instead of emotion?
Lol! I love how when I call someone retarded they follow up my post with more retarded non sense.
What you conveniently left out of your rediculous post (which I didn't leave out in mine) was the ability to petition, the government to make changes, you know, that other thing that Americans have in common with slaves, the ability to change the rules and their masters.
Now, I live in America and this discussion is about American policies, what that has to do with other countries I have no idea but I'm sure you had some point you were trying to make.
Slaves, Muslims, what other right wing buzzwords did you want to add to your mad lib? Taxes? Communism? Gays? Surprisingly you haven't used 'mericah!
Was that supposed to be part of a complete scentence?
Again, you ignore the fact that someone else has to pay the taxes to provide this social insurance to the person who quit. In this case, one man's "freedom" to quit his job and pursue his dreams means less freedom for someone else to achieve their dreams. There is no net increase in total freedom whatsoever, you've just shifted the burden to another person.
was that supposed to be part of an ad hominem attack?
You live in and enjoy the benefits of society, so you have to pay your share. Poor little you!
.
bingo.
I'm not ignoring anything. And no, the differences in freedom are not symmetrical.