Bottom post of the previous page:
Hot takeohnopigeons wrote:All taxation is theft.
Bottom post of the previous page:
Hot takeohnopigeons wrote:All taxation is theft.
You use water pipes and heating pipes for your house baka boy.CosmicScientist wrote:I don't even use roads!
ShadowDimentio wrote:Plus, how fucking evil are you prepared to be for your glorious communist utopia? Now that I've forced you to admit you're literally just robbing people you've flat out given up the ghost and are advocating springing blind robbery on them and taking everything they own with no time for them to escape with any of THEIR shit. It's despicable.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?ShadowDimentio wrote:Taxation isn't socialism you baka, it's paying for our use and continued use of all the public works. That's capitalism!
Rich people don't use public works any more than anyone else.ohnopigeons wrote:ShadowDimentio wrote:Plus, how fucking evil are you prepared to be for your glorious communist utopia? Now that I've forced you to admit you're literally just robbing people you've flat out given up the ghost and are advocating springing blind robbery on them and taking everything they own with no time for them to escape with any of THEIR shit. It's despicable.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?ShadowDimentio wrote:Taxation isn't socialism you baka, it's paying for our use and continued use of all the public works. That's capitalism!
The government owns the public works, they just let everyone use them. C A P I T A L I S MCosmicScientist wrote:Anything public is socialist. Capitalism would own the roads, the rails, if that's profitable anymore, and if you put on a big smile, remember to not pay taxes for social dental work, with rosy cheeks, then maybe, just maybe, you'll get a ha'penny in charity for your troubles.
We live in mixed societies or I assume anything this side of the Atlantic does, where the government owns and collects taxes for the infrastructure and various large scale social service needs such as police and healthcare. Capitalists get an easy time slotting their businesses into these such as purchasing rolling stock for railways or plugging gaps, intentional or not, in police & healthcare services.
While people who gamble clearly get more education than anyone else which is why taxes from gambling is used to pay for public education.ShadowDimentio wrote:Rich people don't use public works any more than anyone else.
are you genuinely fucking dense, state ownership is one of the main tenets of communism the state owns absolutely fucking everything in that system, and socialism is a milder derivative of communism that isn't pants on head fucking retarded. Pure capitalism aka libertarian to the extreme would be where the corporations own everythingShadowDimentio wrote:The government owns the public works, they just let everyone use them. C A P I T A L I S MCosmicScientist wrote:Anything public is socialist. Capitalism would own the roads, the rails, if that's profitable anymore, and if you put on a big smile, remember to not pay taxes for social dental work, with rosy cheeks, then maybe, just maybe, you'll get a ha'penny in charity for your troubles.
We live in mixed societies or I assume anything this side of the Atlantic does, where the government owns and collects taxes for the infrastructure and various large scale social service needs such as police and healthcare. Capitalists get an easy time slotting their businesses into these such as purchasing rolling stock for railways or plugging gaps, intentional or not, in police & healthcare services.
I was getting at how public works could be equated to a business in that everyone uses them and thus everyone pays a small amount for their usage, though yeah the important difference is that it isn't done for profit as opposed to businesses.Sometinyprick wrote:are you genuinely fucking dense, state ownership is one of the main tenets of communism the state owns absolutely fucking everything in that system, and socialism is a milder derivative of communism that isn't pants on head fucking retarded. Pure capitalism aka libertarian to the extreme would be where the corporations own everythingShadowDimentio wrote:The government owns the public works, they just let everyone use them. C A P I T A L I S M
I don't followohnopigeons wrote:Capital Gains tax
And you've just contradicted your previous reasoning.
>I'm a DreamerShadowDimentio wrote:
"Serious insider knowledge" like basic knowledge of who just got elected? Unless the entire communist party that just got elected kept it secret that they were all blood red communists, the rich people will know and have bailed at the first sign of it actually looking like the communists may win.
Plus, how fucking evil are you prepared to be for your glorious communist utopia? Now that I've forced you to admit you're literally just robbing people you've flat out given up the ghost and are advocating springing blind robbery on them and taking everything they own with no time for them to escape with any of THEIR shit. It's despicable.
I mean that's true. Poor and middle class use public education roughly the same (or should anyways), while rich people sometimes use public education or don't use it at all because they just get a private education at a private school. So yeah they all use it roughly the same except the rich who use it less or not at all.ohnopigeons wrote:"Rich Stupid people don't use public works education any more than anyone else."
Trump was INTENSELY vocal about literally all his stances on things, and has following his election largely been fulfilling what he promised to do. Nobody but the willfully ignorant would be caught off guard by the changes he said he'd make, IE dismantling the DREAM act.Grazyn wrote:>I'm a Dreamer
>for my entire life no government, left or right, has ever touched my status
>the right is elected
>surely nothing will change now?
>oh fuck
See above, but plenty of presidents on both the left and right have instituted travel bans.Grazyn wrote:>I'm an Iranian working in the US
>for my entire life no government, left or right, has ever touched my ability to move freely between the two countries
>the right is elected
>surely nothing will change now?
>oh fuck
I don't follow what you're trying to get at here, but I don't like how you tried to frame wealth redistribution as something "basic". It's a big fucking deal and a basic attack on one of the oldest of society's laws, the right to one's property.Grazyn wrote:>I'm a rich fatcat
>for my entire life no government, left or right, has ever touched my riches
>the left is elected
>surely nothing will change now?
>oh fuck
Why do you think socialists have to look like rabid communists to enact basic social welfare and wealth redistribution?
I only ever mentioned taxation as a mean of wealth redistribution, then you started talking about leaving and using loopholes to avoid paying your due, even going as far as "civil disobedience" (aka breaking the law) and I said there usually are consequences for thatShadowDimentio wrote:
I don't follow what you're trying to get at here, but I don't like how you tried to frame wealth redistribution as something "basic". It's a big fucking deal and a basic attack on one of the oldest of society's laws, the right to one's property.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist ... (Portugal)CosmicScientist wrote:Social democrats, surely?ColonicAcid wrote:youre being dumb right now buddy.
im from a country where socialists do win elections and there has been exactly zero killings and gulags.
go look up what a socialist is in the dictionary, i think you're getting it confused with a Stalinist.
And your response to the rich just leaving (or reminding the government they can't touch their money) was to try and entrap them by springing this on them out of nowhere, to which I said good luck, they'd have seen it coming a mile away. Then you started talking about how Trump "sprung" things upon people who "weren't expecting it" and I responded by saying he literally couldn't have been more up front about what he was going to do and how the only people who didn't know were the willfully ignorant.Grazyn wrote:I only ever mentioned taxation as a mean of wealth redistribution, then you started talking about leaving and using loopholes to avoid paying your due, even going as far as "civil disobedience" (aka breaking the law) and I said there usually are consequences for that
Grazyn wrote:>democracyShadowDimentio wrote:Haha yeah man the rich should have just given up their wealth willingly if they didn't want to get shot in the headGrazyn wrote:What I mean is that there are relatively peaceful ways to do this before the use of force becomes necessary
>socialists win
>they make laws
>you don't respect laws
>you suffer the consequences
This is how society works
I think this is how the gulags got started.Grazyn wrote:Yes the state can use violence to enforce laws, that's what the police is there for.
You wouldn't be shot of course, are people shot when they don't pay taxes or cheat the IRS? Of course, it all depends on how far you want to go with your disobedience
i thought you were a uk citizenColonicAcid wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist ... (Portugal)CosmicScientist wrote:Social democrats, surely?ColonicAcid wrote:youre being dumb right now buddy.
im from a country where socialists do win elections and there has been exactly zero killings and gulags.
go look up what a socialist is in the dictionary, i think you're getting it confused with a Stalinist.
kind of, we actually have a social democratic party as well but the roots of the partido sociolista was exiled militant socialist parties.
You just acknowledged rich people will pay a larger share for public education while often not even utilizing it for their own kids. Their wealth has been redistributed to the people using those services/towards a public good.ShadowDimentio wrote:Because it's two different things dumb slime.
I thought he was a BR for a long time so you're as confused as I am.Sometinyprick wrote:i thought you were a uk citizenColonicAcid wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist ... (Portugal)CosmicScientist wrote:Social democrats, surely?ColonicAcid wrote:youre being dumb right now buddy.
im from a country where socialists do win elections and there has been exactly zero killings and gulags.
go look up what a socialist is in the dictionary, i think you're getting it confused with a Stalinist.
kind of, we actually have a social democratic party as well but the roots of the partido sociolista was exiled militant socialist parties.
Good point. I wouldn't be opposed to the rich receiving a tax return worth what they would have contributed to the public schools if they private school their kids, then. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if they already do.Kor wrote:You just acknowledged rich people will pay a larger share for public education while often not even utilizing it for their own kids. Their wealth has been redistributed to the people using those services/towards a public good.ShadowDimentio wrote:Because it's two different things dumb slime.
i swear to fucking lord i tell this shit every single time.Sometinyprick wrote:i thought you were a uk citizenColonicAcid wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist ... (Portugal)CosmicScientist wrote:Social democrats, surely?ColonicAcid wrote:youre being dumb right now buddy.
im from a country where socialists do win elections and there has been exactly zero killings and gulags.
go look up what a socialist is in the dictionary, i think you're getting it confused with a Stalinist.
kind of, we actually have a social democratic party as well but the roots of the partido sociolista was exiled militant socialist parties.
out of all the insults you could have said this one hurts the deepest.cedarbridge wrote:I thought he was a BR for a long time so you're as confused as I am.Sometinyprick wrote:i thought you were a uk citizenColonicAcid wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist ... (Portugal)CosmicScientist wrote:Social democrats, surely?ColonicAcid wrote:youre being dumb right now buddy.
im from a country where socialists do win elections and there has been exactly zero killings and gulags.
go look up what a socialist is in the dictionary, i think you're getting it confused with a Stalinist.
kind of, we actually have a social democratic party as well but the roots of the partido sociolista was exiled militant socialist parties.
>Don't understand sarcasm very wellColonicAcid wrote:i was born in portugal but i moved to england when i was young and the only reason im not a british citizen is because it costs like 2k to get neutralised and i would rather spend that money on being a good citizen and burning contraband that i buy from dealers. i have a southwest accent and ive been educated here but i still don't understand sarcasm very well.
I'm not gonna address the fact that even if Dreamers had started to work towards settling their status as soon as Trump started talking about dismantling the DREAM act they still wouldn't have been able to do that in time, but we're still talking about hundreds of thousands (or even millions if we consider all those affected by the travel ban) and it's hard to believe that every single one of them was stupid or willfully ignorant. My point isn't that Trump "sprung" things upon people in a mischievous way, it's that people tend to not expect politicians to go through with their promises, so it's a surprise when the odd one actually does it.ShadowDimentio wrote:And your response to the rich just leaving (or reminding the government they can't touch their money) was to try and entrap them by springing this on them out of nowhere, to which I said good luck, they'd have seen it coming a mile away. Then you started talking about how Trump "sprung" things upon people who "weren't expecting it" and I responded by saying he literally couldn't have been more up front about what he was going to do and how the only people who didn't know were the willfully ignorant.Grazyn wrote:I only ever mentioned taxation as a mean of wealth redistribution, then you started talking about leaving and using loopholes to avoid paying your due, even going as far as "civil disobedience" (aka breaking the law) and I said there usually are consequences for that
I could do it for you for less.ColonicAcid wrote:it costs like 2k to get neutralised.
>As soon as Trump mentioned itGrazyn wrote:I'm not gonna address the fact that even if Dreamers had started to work towards settling their status as soon as Trump started talking about dismantling the DREAM act they still wouldn't have been able to do that in time, but we're still talking about hundreds of thousands (or even millions if we consider all those affected by the travel ban) and it's hard to believe that every single one of them was stupid or willfully ignorant. My point isn't that Trump "sprung" things upon people in a mischievous way, it's that people tend to not expect politicians to go through with their promises, so it's a surprise when the odd one actually does it.
Socialists always talk about tax raises for the rich and wealth redistribution but they never end up doing it in a serious way, and rich people don't usually leave the country en masse when the left is elected. But what if they actually did it for real one time? That's what I'm saying, and that's how it should be done. It's not about sneaking up unto unsuspecting people, is about doing what you've been elected for, just for once. And if they fail to take steps to avoid it beforehand, it's on them.
You're either a citizen or not a citizen, and they're not citizens. They can apply for immigration and citizenry but that takes time and money and effort.CosmicScientist wrote:I thought the dreamers were a grey problem because they didn't get to decide where they were taken as children and can't have pseudo citizenship unless the current despot decides we cool or we not cool, with none of them being able to hope for more than residency? Or are any of them viable for the Murican immigration standards that I never hear anything about?
Because we're talking about communism. Grazyn flat out said "from each according to their ability to each according to their need"Rustledjimm wrote:Why do we keep bringing up communism when we're discussing socialism?
Though they are under the same umbrella they are quite different.
ShadowDimentio wrote:Because we're talking about communism. Grazyn flat out said "from each according to their ability to each according to their need"Rustledjimm wrote:Why do we keep bringing up communism when we're discussing socialism?
Though they are under the same umbrella they are quite different.
Only on the harder, communist end of the stick.Rustledjimm wrote:That is a part of the socialism umbrella, not specifically communism.
True but it's also critically important and keeps the rabble out.ColonicAcid wrote:citizenship is the biggest restraining social construct of the 21st century
quote me on this
Users browsing this forum: No registered users