Lol.. True on each account.
Now try to humor me with answering the obvious that you conveniently chose to ignore?
Who do you side with?
- Thread starter ♪alt13
- Start date
Lol.. True on each account.
Now try to humor me with answering the obvious that you conveniently chose to ignore?
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
It isn't a shadowy they. It is the clerk that files your deed, the judge that rules in your favor, the sheriff that removes a trespasser. It isn't property without these people. It isn't an asset that gains value it is a liability that you have to protect. Without government you can have no claim that you cannot personally enforce. It just isn't property without the state.
I get that... but I so tire of the pansies thank don't realize they is us..
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I get that but I also tire of people that depend on and benefit from the system more so than most believing that their privilege was gained in spite of rather than within that system.
that cuts both ways...
You implied a system that allows for capitalism while also lamenting the same??
Maybe I should read posts twice, i dunno.
Btw, I've never been given a dime, ever.. And have a charitable heart.. And am a conservative. Mind blown?
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I'm not attacking you or your heart.
Yes I did explain why I thought that the state(to which I am opposed)has a claim to capitalist property(to which I am opposed). I blame few for doing the best they can and succeeding within the system. They did not make the rules they just played the game so to speak but when they think they are exempt or above the system when it is their turn to pay I do get annoyed. I do also think we can do better. Property, in a capitalist sense, is the essence of fascism. It is only through the power of the state that the capitalist can justify their property. They cannot justify it by need nor charity nor their own strength. They can only justify it through patronage to a system that nowadays they so often claim to despise but would not have the slightest hope of maintaining their privilege without.
Isn't that what the property tax is for? Not capital gains?
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
You've been born with the privilege of being a white male.
Think of all those deals you've finished, and now think about how many you'd settle with the name Ahmed Mohammed. Or, if you were a woman wearing a hijab in said board rooms.
Sincere question (because I'm just not aware of how things work against Muslims - your example).
Is this a global issue, or one that is more a U.S. thing?
And, btw, I can't get behind a "white male" tax. I've worked my *** off and started with nothing.
I am all for equality, but not sure how to accomplish fairness without penalizing someone else for an "advantage" they had no choice in...
Tbh, I really believe I could have done all the things I've done as Ahmed.. but admit I am likely too naive to confidently defend that position.
I can say, however, I would recruit the **** out of Dala for any position he would want and would feel I hit a home run in doing so.
I am all for equality, but not sure how to accomplish fairness without penalizing someone else for an "advantage" they had no choice in...
Tbh, I really believe I could have done all the things I've done as Ahmed.. but admit I am likely too naive to confidently defend that position.
I can say, however, I would recruit the **** out of Dala for any position he would want and would feel I hit a home run in doing so.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Money is property. It isn't real property like a home but it is property. It a form of property to which the government is most involved in its creation and management. Why should it not be taxed while other forms of property are?
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
I feel that current taxes and tax breaks for owner occupied property has a pretty good balance. There are people that tax advantages of the tax rules to flip a house every two years and walk away with no taxes. If there were not limits on the tax breaks, it would be abused even more.
FWIW, Utah property taxes are very reasonable. Try living in New York, where a $250k house has $8,000 a year in property tax (more or less doubles your mortgage).
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
Statistics show conservatives are more likely to make charitable contributions. The difference is conservatives want to choose where to donate. Liberals want the government to choose what happens to your money.
I am fairly neutral politically overall, but I am all for better fiscal policy, both in spending and in taxes. I really have no problem with property or sales tax for the most part, but local spending could be better. It is the federal spending that bothers me.
I started my career with the federal government. If they didn't spend their allotted budget for the year, their next years budget was reduced the the amount spent in the prior year, which caused all the departments to overspend. One of our floors had the carpet replaced every year just to use up the budget. The federal government always seemed to have a 3-4 month hiring freeze around October (when the federal budget gets fought over) so these departments overhire by 20% before the freeze occurs, leaving a bunch of people getting paid for doing next to nothing.
More taxes may be a necessity, but it is hard to stomach when I see the blatant inefficiency with our (taxpayers) money that occurs now.
You're opposed to the idea of a state? What is your preferred alternative?
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
If I had to nail my ideological leanings down I would call myself a progressive social anarchist. Progressive as in not revolutionary, social as in the welfare of others really does matter, and anarchist as in dismantling hierarchical relationships.
I would seek to replace state power with institutions of free association. Bitcoin is perhaps a good example. I would seek to alter our justifications for property so as to reduce the need for the state. I would seek to move away from a capitalist system and toward a cooperative one. I think a day will come when the state is no more intimidating than the post office and the people's needs are largely met through the efforts of themselves and their community.
Interesting. I personally prefer a global governing body that enforces a narrow set of first principles, along with largely autonomous entities based on common interests.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I would not be %100 opposed to that but when you say "enforce" and "narrow" I wonder how compatible these things are. I would prefer something more like a global think tank than a governing body.
Okay, so we would at least need a global administrative body to coordinate large efforts involving many groups. So it'd have to be a think tank with a bureaucracy.
As for the enforcement issue, if membership in the global government comes with sizable benefit to those who voluntarily join (and it should be designed to offer such benefit), then an enforceable set of rules is both justifiable, and important from a symbolic and practical perspectives. As for modes of enforcement, they could range from imposing penalties to discourage a violating action by counter-acting its benefit to the community (for example if a community enacts a slave labor system, then a fee that outweighs any economic benefit of that system can be issued), to expulsion from the group.
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
Not sure what you are saying. Money is taxed when you invest it and it's value grows, similar to when you use money to buy property and your investment grows, you pay tax on the excess money your investment made for you...Similarly, if you have personal property (car, baseball card collection, etc.) and you sell it for more than you pay for it, you are supposed to pay tax on it. If you invest a U.S. dollar in other currency, and your investment grows, you pay tax.
As an aside, you are also supposed to send sales tax for online orders that do not collect tax in your home state. This rule is not enforced, but I have a friend in Utah that actually did pay this tax. I'm sure the Utah Tax Commission has his check framed as the only person ever to do this LOL.