Death & Taxes (Split from Obama Thread)

[freakazoid]

Yeah nothing better than cutting welfare, privatizing health care even MORE and ending the department of education! That'll sure help the working class!

Never cared much for the government taking the money that I worked for and giving it to someone else, nothing wrong with donating money to help people though.

Sure not everything about him is good, like the whole border thing, but he is a whole lot better than all the others.




I hate these survivalist far-right "libertarian" retards (Like Ron Paul, for example) that seem to think any sort of government program is gonna lead to a Orwellian police state.

Nothing wrong with with being a survivalist :mad: And screw most government programs, well pretty much screw the government itself. If there is to be a government the purpose of it is not to take care of people, it is to keep the neighbors of my back and the enemy at bay.



Also is anyone else slightly put-off by the fact the fucking fascists (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.***************) seem be Ron Paul's biggest supporters?

No. They are not his biggest supporters, and also you have to look at why they are supporting him.

[RHIZOMES]

Never cared much for the government taking the money that I worked for and giving it to someone else, nothing wrong with donating money to help people though.

Sure not everything about him is good, like the whole border thing, but he is a whole lot better than all the others.



Nothing wrong with with being a survivalist :mad: And screw most government programs, well pretty much screw the government itself. If there is to be a government the purpose of it is not to take care of people, it is to keep the neighbors of my back and the enemy at bay.



No. They are not his biggest supporters, and also you have to look at why they are supporting him.

I was wondering why you were restricted...

[Jazzratt]

Never cared much for the government taking the money that I worked for and giving it to someone else, nothing wrong with donating money to help people though.

How do you reconcile this childish and two dimensional view of the public sector with your claims to be a leftist?

[RHIZOMES]

How do you reconcile this childish and two dimensional view of the public sector with your claims to be a leftist?

I was wondering that too?

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah, long live big government and the nanny state. :rolleyes:

We should all live for ourselves and make our own decisions.

I have little use for government. I want to live my life as a FREE MAN. I want to be free from you and I want you to be free from me.

Maybe government should pave the roads and such--but little else.

[RHIZOMES]

We should all live for ourselves and make our own decisions.

I have little use for government. I want to live my life as a FREE MAN. I want to be free from you and I want you to be free from me.

Maybe government should pave the roads and such--but little else.

Well that kind of attitude is expected from you. But freakazoid claims to be a leftist. :laugh:

[freakazoid]

How do you reconcile this childish and two dimensional view of the public sector with your claims to be a leftist?

How do you reconcile the .gov stealing the money you received for you labor with your claims to being a leftist?

Example; You work 10 hours, get paid $10 an hour, that would mean that in 1 day you make $100, And say the tax is 10%, that means that the .gov stole $10. Which means that there was 1 hour you didn't get compensated for your labor, and that is slavery.

[Jazzratt]

How do you reconcile the .gov stealing the money you received for you labor with your claims to being a leftist?

Example; You work 10 hours, get paid $10 an hour, that would mean that in 1 day you make $100, And say the tax is 10%, that means that the .gov stole $10. Which means that there was 1 hour you didn't get compensated for your labor, and that is slavery.

If the government didn't "steal" my parents' money when I was a child it is unlikely I would have received the cancer treatment I needed to stay alive. Without the government "stealing" my money when I work then I have nothing when I am out of work and must rely on my family. It's perfectly fine for you to talk in your high-minded way about money being "stolen" from you when you live a comfortable life in your mother's basement but there are people in the world who rely on public services.

Naturally the taxation system doesn't work properly because it is attempting to bolt an idea that is alien to capitalism onto the capitalist edifice, but I would rather live in a country with relatively high tax, but good public services, than some Libertarian hellhole.

[freakazoid]

If the government didn't "steal" my parents' money when I was a child it is unlikely I would have received the cancer treatment I needed to stay alive.

Just because something good can come out of something bad doesn't make it right.


It's perfectly fine for you to talk in your high-minded way about money being "stolen" from you when you live a comfortable life in your mother's basement but there are people in the world who rely on public services.

LOL, you don't know shit about me. I have a place I rent jack ass. Comfortable life? I have quite a bit of debt, but that is my fault, and I am not complaining about it because I knew the consequences.

Not only is it bad but it discourages community involvement because why should I help or even care to help my neighbor or community when I know that they are getting money from the .gov to help them.

You didn't even talk about my example.

[Xiao Banfa]

Never cared much for the government taking the money that I worked for and giving it to someone else, nothing wrong with donating money to help people though.

You idiot. You may be fooled by dishonest libertarian slogans, we prefer logic.

Before the welfare state, the philanthropy of the rich was a brilliant failure.

Are you naive enough to rely on voluntary welfare? It doesn't work.

We pool our taxes, so people who are caught by circumstances and our incapacitated don't starve and suffer disease.

This is the solution adopted through the entire western

The people that exploit that system to sit on their arse are a minority and not a good enough reason to destroy the greater value of the system.

And, let me remind you that people starting hopping on the dole in greater numbers when keynesian poicies of full employment and work dignity (through strong unions) were thrown out.

[jake williams]

I want to live my life as a FREE MAN.
Then get off my internet. I have no problem with these "individualists" living alone in the wood eating berries, hell, I don't care too much if you hunt a deer now and then. But that people have the gall to get on the internet - a government creation - and moan about I WANNA BE A INDIVIDUAL!! GOVERNMENT BAD!!! TAKIN AWAY MY FREEDOMS!!! - gah.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Just because something good can come out of something bad doesn't make it right.

As opposed to the alternative to taxation, in which people are dropping dead left right and centre because they can't afford medical treatment, roads remain unrepaired because the communities through which they run can't afford to repair them, and the money-starved government is powerless against ruthless corporations and mercenaries roam the streets.

In other words, a libertarian's wet dream. You are a fucking idiot, aren't you?

[Dean]

How do you reconcile the .gov stealing the money you received for you labor with your claims to being a leftist?

Example; You work 10 hours, get paid $10 an hour, that would mean that in 1 day you make $100, And say the tax is 10%, that means that the .gov stole $10. Which means that there was 1 hour you didn't get compensated for your labor, and that is slavery.

That's not really inaccurate, but the indication that you oppose welfare states and taxes seems to imply that you don't agree with forcible redistribution of wealth. This comment especially makes your claim to be leftist somewhat murkier:

Never cared much for the government taking the money that I worked for and giving it to someone else, nothing wrong with donating money to help people though.

This seems to indicate that you support the "market democracy" as opposed to real economic democracy (i.e. socialism). Your language seems errily similar to that of the free-market fanatics, and while few of your statements go directly against socialist sentiments, I have been confused by your mannerisms recently myself, and I think that you should at least clarify these statements.

[Dean]

We should all live for ourselves and make our own decisions.

I have little use for government. I want to live my life as a FREE MAN. I want to be free from you and I want you to be free from me.

I think you should review your comments. Is this kind of hyper-individualism and alienation healthy or rational for anyone, capitalist or not? The fact is tht we all ultimately breathe in the same air, use, trash and depend on the same world, resources, society and economy. With a world where people depend on, affect and interact with each other so much, is it really a good idea to make the primary maxim a "freedom from each other," where people look away from society and to themselves, rather than a moral interest in each other, where people look into society and concern themselves with moral oneness with each other?


Quote:Originally Posted by TomK
I want to live my life as a FREE MAN.

Then get off my internet. I have no problem with these "individualists" living alone in the wood eating berries, hell, I don't care too much if you hunt a deer now and then. But that people have the gall to get on the internet - a government creation - and moan about I WANNA BE A INDIVIDUAL!! GOVERNMENT BAD!!! TAKIN AWAY MY FREEDOMS!!! - gah.
Your criticisms could easily apply to yourself. Do you oppose the U.S. military, government or capitalism? All were major parts of the creation of the internet. TomK has not been very antagonistic, and has made a point to take insults and antagonism in stride. However much I oppose much of what he has to say, and probably a lot of who he is, I don't see a reason to insult him at length.

[freakazoid]

and the money-starved government is powerless against ruthless corporations and mercenaries roam the streets.Government? What government? I am an anarchist, there is no government. Ruthless corporations? Companies are run by the workers. And mercenaries for what?


As opposed to the alternative to taxation, in which people are dropping dead left right and centre because they can't afford medical treatment, roads remain unrepaired because the communities through which they run can't afford to repair them, and the money-starved government is powerless against ruthless corporations and mercenaries roam the streets.

Why is all this happening?


That's not really inaccurate, but the indication that you oppose welfare states and taxes seems to imply that you don't agree with forcible redistribution of wealth. This comment especially makes your claim to be leftist somewhat murkier:What do you mean by forcible redistribution of wealth? As in John Doe has more money than you so you take his money?


This seems to indicate that you support the "market democracy" as opposed to real economic democracy (i.e. socialism). Your language seems errily similar to that of the free-market fanatics, and while few of your statements go directly against socialist sentiments, I have been confused by your mannerisms recently myself, and I think that you should at least clarify these statements.I am opposed to capitalism, but I do not think that forced taxes are right. In a true collective people would care about there neighbors enough to want to help. I believe that people can actually be good and not have to be forced by the government to help each other, because I believe that people can actually live without the government.

[Dean]

What do you mean by forcible redistribution of wealth? As in John Doe has more money than you so you take his money?
No, as in I am starving so I steal food or money from Doe, who is rich. Or a group of workers rise up and take a factory from a capitalist. Or, finally, a socialist state decides that taxing the rich, or even the middle class, to raise funds with which to feed indigents is a good policy.




I am opposed to capitalism, but I do not think that forced taxes are right. In a true collective people would care about there neighbors enough to want to help. I believe that people can actually be good and not have to be forced by the government to help each other, because I believe that people can actually live without the government.
Again, the final state of things - lack of government, collective ownership and socially-interested society is a given, assuming you are a communist or anarchist. However, you are talking about the defense of property rights in the broad sense - money, possessions, land, means of prod., etc.. These are NOT policy issues if you talk about a communist or anarchist society. They are issues which are ONLY faced by states and societies which have state or capitalist systems, and for that matter your positions indicate that you would prefer that, until the revolution comes, your property rights are held in higher esteem than those things which compel revolutionaries to fight - inequality, starvation, poverty.

Yes, we'd love that there be no state. Also, that there be no war or violence - should we then given up on fighting for revolution, and also oppose militant revolutions, because they are violent, and after all, an anarchist society would have no violence?

[Jazzratt]

Government? What government? I am an anarchist, there is no government. Ruthless corporations? Companies are run by the workers. And mercenaries for what?

Yes but you live in the here and now; no one is advocating tax in a future society, cretin. Companies are run by the bourgeoisie and mercenaries exist for a whole fuck ton of reasons. Have you actually poked your head up from your bunker to look at the real world recently?


Why is all this happening?

Because capitalism can't be trusted.



What do you mean by forcible redistribution of wealth? As in John Doe has more money than you so you take his money?

As in John Doe owns the means of production, this is all basic anarchist stuff and if you'd been paying attention when you read anarchist literature rather than just skimming it and getting back to the bible or mere christianity then you would have known about this kind of shit.




I am opposed to capitalism, but I do not think that forced taxes are right.

You explain that to people on NHS waiting lists, I dare you.


In a true collective people would care about there neighbors enough to want to help.

We don't live in a true collective. No one supports tax in a true collective because it's not a money based society.


I believe that people can actually be good and not have to be forced by the government to help each other, because I believe that people can actually live without the government.

So if we got rid of taxes tomorrow it would all be an anarchist utopia?

[Xiao Banfa]

What do you mean by forcible redistribution of wealth? As in John Doe has more money than you so you take his money?


I'm not sure if you're stupid enough to believe this, but we aren't.

[freakazoid]

No, as in I am starving so I steal food or money from Doe, who is rich. Or a group of workers rise up and take a factory from a capitalist. Or, finally, a socialist state decides that taxing the rich, or even the middle class, to raise funds with which to feed indigents is a good policy.Nothing wrong with taken back what has been stolen from you to begin with, sort of a Robin Hood type of thing. Or the workers taken over the factories, because it should belong to them to begin with. But I believe that taxes are slavery.



Yes, we'd love that there be no state. Also, that there be no war or violence - should we then given up on fighting for revolution, and also oppose militant revolutions, because they are violent, and after all, an anarchist society would have no violence?Well there still would be violence, just not on the scale that we see it now because the reason for most violence would be eliminated. But I do not believe that that makes taxes, which I believe amount to slavery, ok.


Yes but you live in the here and now; no one is advocating tax in a future societySo then why is it ok to do it now? No one is advocating the use of slavery in the future so does that make it ok to use it now?


Companies are run by the bourgeoisie and mercenaries exist for a whole fuck ton of reasons.I was talking about how they would be run.


Have you actually poked your head up from your bunker to look at the real world recently?Bunker, I wish. Haven't gotten that far... yet, :D


Because capitalism can't be trusted.Your saying that this is happenning because taxes are not being empleminted, why?


As in John Doe owns the means of production, this is all basic anarchist stuff and if you'd been paying attention when you read anarchist literature rather than just skimming it and getting back to the bible or mere christianity then you would have known about this kind of shit.Dean gave a better definition. I haven't been able to read much into my stack of literature in my to be read pile. Hey, you remember the book I had been talking about, :D


You explain that to people on NHS waiting lists, I dare you.So you think slavery is ok then?


We don't live in a true collective. No one supports tax in a true collective because it's not a money based society.

So why is it ok to do before then?


So if we got rid of taxes tomorrow it would all be an anarchist utopia?Why would you say that? I have never said that. It would only be one thing in a big list of them.


I'm not sure if you're stupid enough to believe this, but we aren't.I asked that because I was trying to make sure on exactly what was meant by that because I am not completely up to date on all left thoughts. Thanks for replying though, sarcasm meant.

[Dean]

Nothing wrong with taken back what has been stolen from you to begin with, sort of a Robin Hood type of thing. Or the workers taken over the factories, because it should belong to them to begin with. But I believe that taxes are slavery.
It's an act of slacery when a socialist government taxes the bourgeois in order to remove their priviledged status?


Well there still would be violence, just not on the scale that we see it now because the reason for most violence would be eliminated. But I do not believe that that makes taxes, which I believe amount to slavery, ok.
Attacks on human beings, perhaps resulting in death, are acceptable in order to serve the interests of social revolution, but taxation is not?




So then why is it ok to do it now? No one is advocating the use of slavery in the future so does that make it ok to use it now?
There is a distinct difference between slavery and a rational system of taxation meant to reduce class divisions. But to follow your train of logic, the only acceptable action in any period is what is expected as the norm for a future anarchist society. In that sense, we should completely ignore every problem of today, or find only methods of resolving these crises which cannot be said to be negative results of such time periods - namely, war. Since we can't expect class antagisms to be prevalent in anarchism, it would follow that we shouldn't react with violence to that kind of opression - after all, violence would certainly be unacceptable under a free, anarchist society.

[Xiao Banfa]

I asked that because I was trying to make sure on exactly what was meant by that because I am not completely up to date on all left thoughts. Thanks for replying though, sarcasm meant.

I would be grateful if you could elaborate because I have drunk too much.



No, as in I am starving so I steal food or money from Doe, who is rich. Or a group of workers rise up and take a factory from a capitalist. Or, finally, a socialist state decides that taxing the rich, or even the middle class, to raise funds with which to feed indigents is a good policy


I'm sorry if I am blunt, but I fear for your integrity. The capitalist is allowed, by the grace of the state (or the connivance of), dominion over part of the economy which represents him far beyond the capacity of his democratic worth.

If you don't see this as a serious deficit in the national and democratic process, I'm not sure what I can say to you bruv.

List the regressive, press muzzling, union breaking, war mongering initiatives and reactions; you will find the capital-owning usual suspects are consistently holding us back.

I'm not saying we should eliminate the market completely.

I'm saying that the market is undemocratic.

The market is not and end but a means to an end.

Let's use it as long as it's not devastating our civilisation.

If and whenthe communist (stateless, classless) society is achieved, then the market will cease to exist.

Untill then, engage in productive enterprise if you're that attached to that system. And possibly pay your TUC, AFL-CIO, IWW, CTU dues.

[RGacky3]

this talk of forced redistribution is rediculous, forced redistribution already happens in Capitalism, when a worker makes something he HAS to give it to the Capitalist, otherwise he's a thief and goes to jail, what Socialists want is the worker does'nt have to give it up to a Capitalist, what Socialists are doing is not forced, its taking away property laws that rely on force.

[pusher robot]

when a worker makes something he HAS to give it to the Capitalist, otherwise he's a thief and goes to jail.Only if he has already sold his labor, something he is not required to do. If a carpenter wants to keep what he makes, all he has to do is not sell his labor to someone else.

[careyprice31]

How do you reconcile this childish and two dimensional view of the public sector with your claims to be a leftist?

Easy.

Because he isnt one.

Hecan say he's leftist but it dont make him one.

[careyprice31]

If the government didn't "steal" my parents' money when I was a child it is unlikely I would have received the cancer treatment I needed to stay alive. Without the government "stealing" my money when I work then I have nothing when I am out of work and must rely on my family. It's perfectly fine for you to talk in your high-minded way about money being "stolen" from you when you live a comfortable life in your mother's basement but there are people in the world who rely on public services.

Naturally the taxation system doesn't work properly because it is attempting to bolt an idea that is alien to capitalism onto the capitalist edifice, but I would rather live in a country with relatively high tax, but good public services, than some Libertarian hellhole.

Couldn't agree more. :)

btw some info for you.

The income tax was first introduced during world war one to help pay for the cost of the war.

and it worked so well, that we still pay it, more than eighty years later.

I wouldn't mind paying an income tax though if I had a job that paid enough for me to be taxed, because I know that taxes are good. They help pay for roads, welfare, housing programs, medicare, you name it. I could go on for a page with what taxes can do.

The fact is, taxes do help save lives.

In fact I wish more things were under the tax system, like chiropractors. Right now when I have to see a chiropractor for my scoliosis, I have to pay for it out of my own pocket.

Same with veterinarian bills for my two cats when they need a doctor.

If our society taxed the bourgeoisie more than it does (and it really doesnt, in the latest federal budget they got more tax breaks and if they got taxed more it wouldnt hurt them anyway cause they can afford to pay them), we could have more of these things into medicare, housing and welfare that help save lives.

[freakazoid]

[/quote]It's an act of slacery when a socialist government taxes the bourgeois in order to remove their priviledged status?[/quote]

Taxes in itself is slavery. What I said earlier;


Example; You work 10 hours, get paid $10 an hour, that would mean that in 1 day you make $100, And say the tax is 10%, that means that the .gov stole $10. Which means that there was 1 hour you didn't get compensated for your labor, and that is slavery.

Plus taxes don't only hurt the rich, they hurt everybody, unless the only people taxed are people above a certain bracket of income. Plus you end up paying for things that you may not agree with, like the "war" for example.


Attacks on human beings, perhaps resulting in death, are acceptable in order to serve the interests of social revolution, but taxation is not?

Was the dropping of the nukes to end WWII acceptable? Surely it did save many many lives though so does that make it ok?. I don't believe so because it was an attack against civilians. There are cetain things that are, slavery not being one.

[/quote]There is a distinct difference between slavery and a rational system of taxation meant to reduce class divisions. But to follow your train of logic, the only acceptable action in any period is what is expected as the norm for a future anarchist society. In that sense, we should completely ignore every problem of today, or find only methods of resolving these crises which cannot be said to be negative results of such time periods - namely, war. Since we can't expect class antagisms to be prevalent in anarchism, it would follow that we shouldn't react with violence to that kind of opression - after all, violence would certainly be unacceptable under a free, anarchist society.[/quote]

If there was a nazi then, then it would be ok to use violence against them. If some oppresive government tried to rise up then, then it would be ok to try to use violence against it. Violence is ok now and then. But slavery is not ok now or then.


I would be grateful if you could elaborate because I have drunk too much.[quote]

You are forgiven, :D Eloborate more? I think it was pretty clear, I didn't understand what that phrase exactly meant, which is why I asked.

[quote]Easy.

Because he isnt one.

Hecan say he's leftist but it dont make him one.

And you base this off of what?


Couldn't agree more.

btw some info for you.

The income tax was first introduced during world war one to help pay for the cost of the war.

and it worked so well, that we still pay it, more than eighty years later.

I wouldn't mind paying an income tax though if I had a job that paid enough for me to be taxed, because I know that taxes are good. They help pay for roads, welfare, housing programs, medicare, you name it. I could go on for a page with what taxes can do.

The fact is, taxes do help save lives.

In fact I wish more things were under the tax system, like chiropractors. Right now when I have to see a chiropractor for my scoliosis, I have to pay for it out of my own pocket.

Same with veterinarian bills for my two cats when they need a doctor.

If our society taxed the bourgeoisie more than it does (and it really doesnt, in the latest federal budget they got more tax breaks and if they got taxed more it wouldnt hurt them anyway cause they can afford to pay them), we could have more of these things into medicare, housing and welfare that help save lives.

You must be quite happy that your taxes are helping to fund a war then. Aren't taxes just great.


I have noticed that no one has responded to my reason for being against taxes.

[Jazzratt]

Freakazoid you clearly have no understanding of leftism, slavery or why we need taxes in the current system. Slavery, as in unpaid work obviosuly doesn't operate at all like taxation but, and here is where I think you go wrong, wage slavery could easily be understood that way if one were being incredibly dense. Wage slavery is defined by the fact that someone does x amount of work which produces y amount of profit, the manager then takes a huge cut (amount z) and the worker is left with less than the full value of their labour (amount p - for pay). WHat you seem to be trying to argue is that a worker who then has to give up some of that money in order to continue survivng in the world. With the example of your worker who earns $100 a day ($700 a week) and pays out 10% (a very arse-pulled figure, but whatever) of this ($70) is actually losing out less than if they had to pay a bunch of blood sucking vampires (er, private health companies), privateer yahoos (erm...I mean private mass transit compaines) and whatever else, because most of the time tax works out a fuck sight cheaper than buying medical insurance. But you seem to be all in favour of some ultra-capitalist world (currently, not after a revolution) in which the entire world is run by whatever money hungry leech gets the most customers. This shows a complete lack of respect for what the working class have struggled for centuries to get - I'm sorry that you consider it "slavery" to make sure everyone gets at least some modicum of decency in their lives but that's your own fucking ignorance.

That's assuming of course that you understand that we are not currently in your anarchist dystopia (the post-apocalyptic feel never real struck a chord with me, gievn thqat I'm a rational human being), which is a huge assumption given that your every argument has been "nah-uh, I'm an anarchist and I don't think theres should be a state". It's people like you that let fascists take seats because you never apply your principals to the real world.

YEs capitalist governments spend tax on a lot of dodgy things but the point is that tax is a concession to the worker which runs counter to the greedy "fuck everyone else I want the whole fucking pie" attitude displayed by bosses, it allows them (in most civilised nations) access to decent healthcare, education and local amenities. Of course tax isn't perfect - it's a price system solution for a fundamental flaw in the price system itself.

[Xiao Banfa]

First of all, the state allows the capitalist to own massive slices of the economy, and defends him in doing so. However, because he can't be trusted to respect a certain standard of living for the workers, he must be forced to pay tax to the state to maintain a society lest it collapse under the weight of disease, hunger and violence.

The capitalists own a section of the economy, which could be otherwise controlled by society as a whole, by virtue of their cunning or birth. We have seen them destroy nations and gut economies, prevent socially beneficial infrastructure (like rail) from going ahead. They are a thoroughly malignant influence on society.

And they have to pay tax to; A) stop the absolute breakdown of society and b) allow the state to operate in it's essential duties.



We can take shelter in the fact that the working class in most countries understand the dangers of liberalism, minarchism and libertarianism.

I can't believe that some of these fellows think that taxation is some kind of statist leaching on these brave, productive pillars of society.

It's a concession (outside of it's minarchist application) by a capitalist state to the workers in order to stop bloody revolution.

When economic liberalism has been applied, in my country at least, we have seen social breakdown, economic asset loss (without private continuation of the service or enterprise expropriated), devastation of democratic life, apathy, social atomisation, crime, homelessness, destruction of unions, destruction of heritage buildings and the revival of diseases not seen since the depression.

NZ was the most bold experiment in liberal economics in the world, maybe because it was the first welfare state in the world.

It fucked our society thoroughly and united people from across the political spectrum to oppose it.

With the election of the Labour government in 99' we have managed to reinstate some social democratic gains (like re-nationalising accident compensation, stopping bulk funding of schools, allowing unions the right of entry into work places, more regular minimum wage rises, starting a publicly owned bank -which contrary to the screaming of the employers federations is doing brilliantly, re-nationalising our airline...)This is however not nearly enough and there is no proper idea of how to defend these reforms.

[freakazoid]

Wage slavery is defined by the fact that someone does x amount of work which produces y amount of profit, the manager then takes a huge cut (amount z) and the worker is left with less than the full value of their labour (amount p - for pay). Wage slavery is slavery. How is that being dense? Are you saying that wage slavery is good?


WHat you seem to be trying to argue is that a worker who then has to give up some of that money in order to continue survivng in the world. With the example of your worker who earns $100 a day ($700 a week) and pays out 10% (a very arse-pulled figure, but whatever) of this ($70) is actually losing out less than if they had to pay a bunch of blood sucking vampires (er, private health companies), privateer yahoos (erm...I mean private mass transit compaines) and whatever else, because most of the time tax works out a fuck sight cheaper than buying medical insurance.I used those numbers because it is easy math. Slavery is working without getting paid. And to have $10 dollars to be taken out because of taxes equells slavery because that $10 represents 1 hour that you worked but didn't get paid, that is how it is slavery.


But you seem to be all in favour of some ultra-capitalist world (currently, not after a revolution) in which the entire world is run by whatever money hungry leech gets the most customers.

I am? Since when? I am in favor of an armed revolution. Which it will have to be because the state will not just hand it over without a fight. I am in favor of lighting the match to set it off now. I am in favor of using "extreme" measures now to stop this system. But those sort of tactics should not be discussed on an open forum. I do not believe in reformism, perhaps that is what you are mistaking. I believe it should go from the system we have now to an anarchist one, which would mean that taxes wouldn't be needed even if taxes didn't mean slavery.


That's assuming of course that you understand that we are not currently in your anarchist dystopia (the post-apocalyptic feel never real struck a chord with me, gievn thqat I'm a rational human being), which is a huge assumption given that your every argument has been "nah-uh, I'm an anarchist and I don't think theres should be a state". It's people like you that let fascists take seats because you never apply your principals to the real world.

I am for applying my principles, see above response. You don't seem to know me very well. Anarchist dystopia, lol. I really do like the post-apocalyptic stuff I'll hand you that, :). I do not believe taxes are right, now or then. You seem to of gotten me wrong when I say that just because it shouldn't be applied when we reach the time after the revolution that it shouldn't be applied now. If taxes did mean slavery, even though you don't believe they do but if they were, would it be ok to use it now? I am not against it because it shouldn't be used after the revolution, I am against because I believe it to be slavery and I believe slavery to be immoral.

[freakazoid]

Nice to see your still batshit insane.

Nice to see you refute anything I said, :rolleyes:



And you claim to be a leftist.

So ALL leftists HAVE to believe in taxes?

[Xiao Banfa]

Don't worry he's yesterdays' man. Those libertarian policies are not long for this world. In my country most of the right no longer campaigns on them. Because they are widely hated by a great majority.

The only way people accept capitalism is with all the things freakazoid hates included.

Without some form of a welfare state, poverty skyrockets with all the disease and disentegration that entails.

Freakazoid has no knowledge of history or is deliberately distorting it to say otherwise.

[freakazoid]

Freakazoid has no knowledge of history or is deliberately distorting it to say otherwise.

What history am I talking about?


Without some form of a welfare state, poverty skyrockets with all the disease and disentegration that entails.

That would be because people aren't helping each other. It is not because the .gov isn't stealing from Peter to pay Paul.



The only way people accept capitalism is with all the things freakazoid hates included.

You have fun with your nanny state.


First of all, the state allows the capitalist to own massive slices of the economy, and defends him in doing so. However, because he can't be trusted to respect a certain standard of living for the workers, he must be forced to pay tax to the state to maintain a society lest it collapse under the weight of disease, hunger and violence.

Everybody is paying taxes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. And guess who doesn't get as affected because they have more money? While the proletariat has less money to have taken from there paycheck to feed themselves, the bourgeoisie has a lot of money that being taxed doesn't affect them.

Plus while living under the nanny state the people are not going to wake up and revolt because they live to comfortably a life style with there .gov checks that they won't revolt. Why change something good? Why help your neighbor? Welfare creates a need for the .gov, welfare keeps capitalism afloat.

And could you please respond to my actual reasons for being against taxes.

[Dejavu]

Yes i think so cuz the taxes support government programs that benefit the poor.

Question freak what about all the people that are currently unemployed and cant live without those programs? How are they supposed to pay the rent,food, etc. without that money?

^^^ Pure economic ignorance illuminated. Its not you're fault though. You probably didn't have control over this economic fallacy being planted in your head. The fallacy probably slipped in and you didn't even realize it until you started taking an interest later, but too late, the fallacy stuck around. No offense, I used to be in the same boat. ;)


As the great journalist/economist Henry Hazlitt once put it :

"The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups." - Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson.

[Xiao Banfa]

What history am I talking about?

That's the point. You are completely ignoring it.

It's as if you have no idea of the kind of poverty that existed before the welfare state and the gargantuan increases in employment and living standards since then.

You also seem to suffer from the idealist delusion that voluntary individual charity is sufficient for a social welfare system. :D

As you probably realise, this is a discussion about 'social democratic' and new dealist capitalism vs social darwinist capitalism.

It's simple, we all have a responsibilty to chip in as a society and if any of us need care at any given time, we get it.

The rich pay more because they earn more, have a greater slice of the economy and therefore have a greater responsibility.

It's not about handouts and free-loading, dependence etc...

That all came later, when other pillars of the interventionist 'social democratic' state were torn down by free market looters.

Pillars such as full employment and the recognition that unions are a social force.

America was slightly different to the rest of the world, but similar phenomena occurred.

So I'm speaking more for my own country.


That would be because people aren't helping each other. It is not because the .gov isn't stealing from Peter to pay Paul.

Those nasty government socialist are holding back the good human nature. That's a new one. New verbal gymnastics from the masters of libertarian black-is-whitism.

I think allowing a system to exist where a safety net is not a right and the only welfare is crumbs from the rich mans table, is 'people not helping each other'.


Everybody is paying taxes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

Hilarious, our social darwinist friend believes in classes. Do you also believe then in class struggle? If so which side are you on? Actually on second thoughts, don't answer that.

Good point -why should the proletariat have to pay taxes?

In the transition to socialism and communism (in my proposal) the proletarian will pay no taxes. But maybe that's because the rich will be taxed untill they bleed. Then their property will be nationalised.

Under capitalism the state needs to find it's taxes from everywhere.

Just one other thing. Why would the state have a welfare sytem if the private sector was capable of providing it? Why would they spend money on something they didn't need to do?

I think you'll find this is because the capitalists can't get their act together on this one.

[freakazoid]

[/quote]Question freak what about all the people that are currently unemployed and cant live without those programs? How are they supposed to pay the rent,food, etc. without that money?[/quote]

Now why can't they live without these programs? Because the capitalists want it that way, they want them to be dependant on it. What needs to be done to correct the problem is something like what the Black Panthers had done. Actually get the community involved in helping itself to free itself. That is what needs to be done. Not be put on a leash by the .gov by welfare programs.



So I'm speaking more for my own country.

Ah, see I don't know much at all about your country, although I here is is a nice place, :)


Those nasty government socialist are holding back the good human nature. That's a new one. New verbal gymnastics from the masters of libertarian black-is-whitism.

Libertarian? lol I'm an anarchist.



Hilarious, our social darwinist friend believes in classes. Do you also believe then in class struggle? If so which side are you on? Actually on second thoughts, don't answer that.

Social darwinist? I don't even know what that is lol, but yes of course I believe in class struggle. I am an anarchist, I believe in the destruction of capitalism, not some reformism from capitalism to anarchy, just like I had said in my earlier post.


But maybe that's because the rich will be taxed untill they bleed. Then their property will be nationalised.

You think that they are going to take the loss? They will pass the loss right on to the consumers and the proletariat so that they get to keep all of there money. They will not allow themselves to become affected.

Do you think it would be ok to make slaves of the bourgeoisie?

[freakazoid]

So basicly your saying screw the poor you dont care what happens to them. All you care about is you is your money.

?? How do you get that? I am against taxes because I view it as no different than slavery. How do you get screw the poor from that?

[Jazzratt]

Wage slavery is slavery. How is that being dense? Are you saying that wage slavery is good?

You're being dense because you are comparing taxes to slaveryy, the closest analogue we have to slavery that you wouold have experienced is wage slavery. I was illustrating the difference between taxes and wage slavery, stupid ****.


I used those numbers because it is easy math. Slavery is working without getting paid. And to have $10 dollars to be taken out because of taxes equells slavery because that $10 represents 1 hour that you worked but didn't get paid, that is how it is slavery.That's mathematical acrobatics, and fundamentally dishonest. Also you could easily be said to be working for something just not to your benefit, thankfully the world isn't set up for useless greedy ****s such as yourself.


I am? Since when? I am in favor of an armed revolution.It doesn't matter a shit what you "advocate" we're not in a revolution, this isn't an anrcho-communist society and you're being a hypocritical tosspot.


Which it will have to be because the state will not just hand it over without a fight. I am in favor of lighting the match to set it off now.Brilliant, why don't you fuck off outside and get yourself shot?


I am in favor of using "extreme" measures now to stop this system.Extreme measures only matter with mass support, otherwise it's simply self-gratifiying and ultimately detrimental to working class revolution.


But those sort of tactics should not be discussed on an open forum. I do not believe in reformism, perhaps that is what you are mistaking.You're attacking a strawman, no one here is adovacting reformism as a long term strategy for stateless and classless society, we're simply pointing out that making life better for workers currentlty is much better than simply allowing capitalism to run rough shod over us and our families. WHile you may believe in propaganda of the deed the rest of the movement has left it behind - because it is counter productive and fucking stupid.


I believe it should go from the system we have now to an anarchist one, which would mean that taxes wouldn't be needed even if taxes didn't mean slavery.If the system we have doesn't have taxes we will be in the situation that NoXion mentioned earlier.


I am for applying my principles, see above response. You don't seem to know me very well. You're not applying your principals, unless you happen to be a fucking AnCap.


I do not believe taxes are right, now or then. You seem to of gotten me wrong when I say that just because it shouldn't be applied when we reach the time after the revolution that it shouldn't be applied now.You say that but then you go on to say...


If taxes did mean slavery, even though you don't believe they do but if they were, would it be ok to use it now? Suggesting you don't advocate them now. And you're asking a fucking leading question - if I asked you, for example, "When did you stop raping people with bread knives?" How would you answer?


I am not against it because it shouldn't be used after the revolution, I am against because I believe it to be slavery and I believe slavery to be immoral.Yes but you also believe Terra to be 6,000 years old, that the actual devil is going to meet me in an actual hell, that a revolution can be started by just randomly shooting shit, that there is an invisible man in the sky and that you can fit 7 of every animal into an area the size of a handful of tennis courts therefore you need to present better reasoning for taxation being lsavery beyond "I HABEEEB IT!"

[freakazoid]

That's mathematical acrobatics, and fundamentally dishonest.

How so?


Also you could easily be said to be working for something just not to your benefit,

Thats not something you want the .gov to have the power of. What are you going to be defending next? The government comes into your home, takes everybody inside, and puts them into labor camps to help build buildings for the poor. How can you say no to that? Sure it is not to your benefit but maybe you shouldn't be so dang self centered and be proud in that you are helping someone. Or another example, you have a fairly large house and the .gov comes in and forces you to house other people, sort of like in the movie Dr. Zhivago. Are these things good?


thankfully the world isn't set up for useless greedy ****s such as yourself.

I'm greedy? Prove it.


It doesn't matter a shit what you "advocate" we're not in a revolution

Thats the problem.


and you're being a hypocritical tosspot.

How am I being a hypocrit and what is a tosspot?


Brilliant, why don't you fuck off outside and get yourself shot?

You made the claim that I was in favor of "some ultra-capitalist world", and what I said disproved that, you can't stand being wrong can you? And, why would I do something that I know will get me shot? But if dying for the revolution mean getting that much closer to an anarchist society then so be it.


Extreme measures only matter with mass support, otherwise it's simply self-gratifiying and ultimately detrimental to working class revolution.

All action starts off with little support until has has mass approval. You do not need mass support to commit extreme measures against the state. But this thread is not for how to acheave the revolution, if you would like we can further discuss this in the thread I made about the tactics of the BP, Weatherman, and the peace movement.


You're attacking a strawman,

Taxes is reformism, I am not attacking a strawman.


If the system we have doesn't have taxes we will be in the situation that NoXion mentioned earlier.

No, we wouldn't. Because like I had said the bourgeoisie will not be affected because they will pass the price of taxes onto everybody else.


You're not applying your principals

I'm not? Prove it.


Suggesting you don't advocate them now. And you're asking a fucking leading question - if I asked you, for example, "When did you stop raping people with bread knives?" How would you answer?

I would answer I don't rape people. And I noticed that you didn't answer the question.


Yes but you also believe Terra to be 6,000 years old,

Who is Terra?


that the actual devil is going to meet me in an actual hell,

I do? You do realize that I don't believe hell to be an actual place, hell actually means to be seperated from God. And I am not sure if the devil is supposed to be an actual being or is supposed to be figurative. You assume so much about me, when you don't really know shit about me.


that a revolution can be started by just randomly shooting shit,

I do?


therefore you need to present better reasoning for taxation being lsavery beyond "I HABEEEB IT!"

What does, I Habeeeb it, mean? And you must not of been paying any attention to my how taxes = slavery example. You called it "mathematical acrobatics, and fundamentally dishonest" but didn't say how it is any of that.

[Bud Struggle]

what is a tosspot?

A drunk.:)

[Dejavu]

You're being dense because you are comparing taxes to slaveryy, the closest analogue we have to slavery that you wouold have experienced is wage slavery. I was illustrating the difference between taxes and wage slavery, stupid ****.

Now taxing wages and labor can be considered some 'civilized' slavery.


this isn't an anrcho-communist society

Thank God.


You're attacking a strawman, no one here is adovacting reformism as a long term strategy for stateless and classless society,

So the solution to achieving a stateless society is increasing the powers of the current state? WTF?:confused:


If the system we have doesn't have taxes we will be in the situation that NoXion mentioned earlier.

You mean the power of the state would dwindle without $$$$ and people actually get to keep what they earn? Sounds like a good ingredient for prosperity if you ask me. :cool:


unless you happen to be a fucking AnCap.

Hey now Jazz. I'm offended. :crying:


Yes but you also believe Terra to be 6,000 years old, that the actual devil is going to meet me in an actual hell, that a revolution can be started by just randomly shooting shit, that there is an invisible man in the sky and that you can fit 7 of every animal into an area the size of a handful of tennis courts therefore you need to present better reasoning for taxation being lsavery beyond "I HABEEEB IT!"

Praise Jesus, Allah, Moses, and Buddha. :cool:

[Dejavu]

Who is Terra?

It is the name of the Earth. Earthlings can also be considered Terrans.

[freakazoid]

A drunk.http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

Oh thank you. You people and your crazy sayings, :p


It is the name of the Earth. Earthlings can also be considered Terrans.

Ooohhh. Why didn't he just say Earth?

[freakazoid]

Like?

So I'm not a true leftist? What exactly is one? Are anarchists true leftists? Are Marxists true leftists? How about Maoists, or Stalinist, or Marxist-Leninist, or ect.? Which one are the real leftists? And should all others be restricted?

[freakazoid]

You didn't answer my question.

[freakazoid]

What makes someone a true leftist? Is it believing in taxes?

[freakazoid]

No believing in taxes means you have a heart and realize the poor need that money

I do believe in helping the poor, just not in that way because like I said I believe it is slavery. It needs to be done in a different way. Like for example, look at how the Black Panthers helped the people. They didn't use taxes. You need to help the people help themselves, because you are not going to get anywhere by just giving hand outs. The people need to be motivated, and when the people are motivated into helping each other then you can actually create change within the system because then you have support of the people. You will be creating the necessary conditions to bring about the revolution.


jazzratt is a she?

[freakazoid]

What about small towns with limited resources and small populations the way the Black Panthers did things wont work there.

I believe it can work there too. It would work even better if they were all united. Instead of them all being separate groups doing there own thing in there own city. They have to be unified.