Sums it Up Perfectly

submitted by Orangutan from (i.redd.it)

all 65 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Canbot 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

I was born to immigrants who came here with nothing. Given an education free of charge for 12 years. Protected by the strongest army in the world, even though I could not contribute. Given the same rights as the aristocrats, even though I was born a peasant. Given the right to vote, even though my family had no part in building this great nation. I walked on the paved and well lit streets that I did not build. Drove on the paved roads I did not fund. Was coddled by the infrastructure that took 100 years to build up before I was even born.

I live in the greatest country in the world. I have a great, high paying job. I vacation every year like a king. I see what the rest of the world is.

I contribute to this country voluntarily. My contribution builds the well lit streets. It funds the schools. It funds the welfare of the poor. It keeps us all safe and affords us the luxury of being disgusting, entitled, ungrateful pieces of shit.

I would like my money to be well spent instead of squandered. To that effect I would like the government to be no bigger than it has to be. But no government, no taxes, is not a paradise. It is literal all out war. It is dog eat dog. It is the most dystopian chaos that can exist.

There is nothing more retarded than to want to turn the greatest country in the world into the most dystopian shit hole simply out of spite. Simply because there are people who are far more successful than you. Stop hating the rich.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

Stop hating the rich

No.

[–]Antifa 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Eat the rich.

The one fucking common theme in the mind of anyone with even modest intelligence, irrespective of political slant, is that a system that allows for a Bezos and a dumpster diver in the third world to share a planet is a shit fucking system.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, you are not contributing, except to the ILLUSION that taxes have any other use than to oppress the population.

[–]Orangutan[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Do you think taxes should be lower or higher? More numerous or simpler? Where do you see the most waste in the system?

[–]Canbot 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I think that is the wrong question. The taxes should be at a level that balances the budget. So right now that is higher.

Taxes should be easier to navigate. There should be an easy way to look up all the tax breaks and loopholes available. Not just so that everyone who qualifies can get those benefits, instead of just those who can afford a good tax attorney, but also for the sake of transparency so we can challenge bad loopholes.

But the right question to ask is "which, if any, government programs should be cut?" Taxes should be lowered by cutting the programs that they fund, wherever there is waste.

It would be a wast of my time to compile a detailed list, but there are lots of stories of government contractors getting away with murder. All kinds of games like bidding low then going over budget, no bid contracts, and cost plus contracts where they fraudulently jack up the costs. These should be addressed first.

[–]C3P0 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

The taxes should be at a level that balances the budget. So right now that is higher.

30-50% of income taxed isn't even nearly enough for high earners. I think the income tax should go from 0-99%. While we're at it, get rid of these silly tax brackets where your 10th dollar is taxed at 5% then suddenly your 11th dollar is taxed at 10%. It makes no sense.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

tax should go from 0-99% ... get rid of these silly tax brackets

pick one. You can't have a progressive tax without tax brackets. It would be stupid to have you pay $500 if you earn $10,000 then make you pay $1,000 if you earn $10,001.

[–]alkhd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I think "It makes no sense" = "I don't understand why" in this case lol. Doubly so because it still wouldnt eliminate brackets.

[–]C3P0 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

your 10th dollar is taxed at 5% then suddenly your 11th dollar is taxed at 10%

How is that situation fair at all? A progressive tax is supposed to punish high earners with stiffer taxes, but imagine this situation:

  1. Joe makes $28,000 per year.
  2. Sally makes $30,000 per year.
  3. Joe and Sally's income remain within the same tax bracket.
  4. Joe and Sally both receive a raise of $2000.

Now despite Sally having a higher income, Joe and Sally's raises are both taxed at the same rate. For believers of a progressive tax, THAT is not fair.

[–]alkhd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Joe still has a lower tax rate than Sally in this case, only thanks to progressive tax. Removing progressive tax wouldn't change the fact that their raise would be the same after tax though, it would just make it so Joe is taxed at the same rate as Sally instead of a lower tax rate.

Let me give you an extreme example of why removing progressive tax doesn't make sense: Let's say people who earn less than 1 million usd per year gets taxes at 0% while people who earn 1 million or more gets taxed 99%. Compare someone who earns 200k per year to someone who earns 10 million. The guy earning 10 million will only get 100k after taxes, how is that fair?

Without progressive tax you would have taxes would be a discontinuous function of income in contrast to continuous, making it a lot more unfair.

To not use tax brackets and still have a fair cotninous tax rate you would need to use a lot more complex functions to determine tax and it would be a lot harder to debate about tax changes (I challenge you to first make a reasonable function for taxing the poorest people 0% and the richest 99%, and then change the function to tax the poorer half a little bit less while raising the richer half's tax rate. Then imagine trying to debate what tax function to use). Most countries use progressive tax brackets so you have one bracket for people in poverty, lower class, middle class, higher class. This way you can raise or lower taxes for any class very easily while still making sure someone who earns 70k doesn't earn less after taxes than someone who earns 69k because the tax bracket changes at 70k

[–]C3P0 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Let me give you an extreme example of why removing progressive tax...

I am in favor of a progressive tax and never said otherwise. I already answered your challenge in my previous reply to /u/Canbot. It does exactly what you described and can be modified easily. It is the well-known logistic function:

T = 1/(1+e-x/50000+2)

It took me 2 minutes to come up with a solution better than any income tax solution ever passed by Congress. This is the reason why the pseudo-democracy fails: the majority would never vote for a logistic tax function.

[–]alkhd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Someone earning 500 dollars taxes 12% and someone earning 2 million taxes 100%.

Someone earning 500 usd will literally have a higher wage after taxes than the guy earning 2 million, not to mention its very inflexible (you gave a honestly terrible answer to the first part of the question and skipped the second part).

here's a graph of your function showing how utterly terrible it is, x is pre-tax income, y is post-tax income, it's also not a progressive tax rate

[–]C3P0 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You can't have a progressive tax without tax brackets.

That's not true. For example, assume x in your income and T is the percent of your income that is taxed.

T = 1/(1+e-x/50000+2)

No discrete brackets for income, so no funny business like your first $1000 dollars gets taxed $100 while the next thousand gets taxed $200. Tax brackets are remnants of a time where computers didn't exist and lawmakers are too incompetent to write laws with mathematical functions.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Most people can't even understand normal tax brackets, putting them on a smooth curve would break their brains. I have actually had some blue collar guys tell me they argued for a specific raise to stay inside a tax bracket and argued with me that they would make less if they went over X salary. Basically they took a lower salary than they were worth because they thought they were gaming the system.

[–]C3P0 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's right. A lot of people don't understand it despite having a college degree.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It's not hating of the rich to point out that our leaders care more for capital than human life. That with all these fucking taxes, all those things you said would actually be done right. Oh, free education? You mean indoctrination for factory work? Oh, roads you didn't build? You mean shitty made roads that need to be repaired every couple of years. Oh, a right to vote? You mean manufactured consent, right? You really think we live in a democracy, and it's hilarious. the west is a glass house. Point at the shiny walls please, and feel better about not being in a mud hut.

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Point at the shiny walls please, and feel better about not being in a mud hut.

It IS better than a mud hut. I'm all for trying to make something better, but I am also intelligent enough to know that in trying to make it better there is a 99% chance you will make it worse. Especially if you are one of those people who is destined to repeat the mistakes of the past by believing that "real socialism hasn't been tried" or some other bullshit excuse for why your way failed in the past. So prove your method somewhere else. Don't destroy the best country just because it isn't perfect when there are hundreds of shittier countries where you can run that experiment.

I don't want to live anywhere else in the world, and that is saying something. Most people in the world agree.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't support the wholesale destruction of any infrastructure or political system. It does have to be dismantled and rebuilt.

I don't support full on socialism, and the only reason my preferred system of government (clan-based democratic monarchy) didn't live into the modern age is because massive empires fucking destroyed them. That's not their fault, that's the fault of the British and the Americans. People can try and say otherwise, but its true. The greatest confederations of clans and tribes didn't fall apart due to massive amounts of malcontents, unlike how America is coming apart due to massive amounts of malcontents. They fell due to wicked wars brought upon them by wicked people.

I don't support BLM or antifa or boogaloo or any of that nonsense. I don't support the political parties, nor do I support the economic system they created. I don't support the glass house. It's going to break, not because evil people are breaking it, but because it's shoddily made. America has too many malcontents to keep going how it is, it'll become far worse in a fascist sense, or it will become "third-world" in most places.

I don't want to live anywhere else either, buts that's just because I was born in this land and I'll see it through to the end. Not because I can go get a job and food from the grocer. You like the west because you are human-centric in your views.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Look, another who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "socialism".

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[removed]

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    You are hilarious

    [–]insta 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Thanks for that insight LICKMYASSPUSSY

    [–]insta 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    My contribution builds the well lit streets. It funds the schools. It funds the welfare of the poor.

    What happens when the streets are shit, the schools teach your kids to hate you, and the poor just want endless gibs?

    This isn't some "fuck the rich" post. This is the cry of the ever-squeezing working and middle classes.

    [–]iDontShift 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    i'd say the problem is the percentage of people that live comfortable as you do is way too low.

    the fact you don't care, is literally how the system continues.

    you don't care that mccrapple's employees can never go on vacation.

    you don't care that walcrap's employees can never go on vacation.

    you don't care that 74% of the people out there are living paycheck to paycheck.

    Depending on the survey, that figure runs from half of workers making under $50,000 (according to Nielsen data) to 74% of all employees (per recent reports from both the American Payroll Association and the National Endowment for Financial Education.) And almost three in 10 adults have no emergency savings at all, according to Bankrate’s latest Financial Security Index.

    glad you are doing well. doesn't mean the system is working.

    [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Incorrect sir. I care.

    However, most people living pay check to pay check do so voluntarily. They squander what they have and giving them more would only result in them squandering more and still living pay check to pay check.

    Just because there are people not doing well does not mean the system is not working. You need to find a way to judge the system correctly. There is no system that can create zero poverty.

    1. I am not saying that wealth perfectly distributes to the deserving under capitalism, far from it. But Capitalism gets closer than any other system, period. I am talking real life results, not imagined, theoretical results of your hypothetical system.

    2. I worked retail and know how it feels to work your ass off for go nowhere. It is disgusting how management would purposefully change people's schedules every week because studies showed that this kept them from being able to get out of that bad situation. I saw first hand how nepotism meant more than hard work in moving up. I bet you were never in a situation like that. Don't be so arrogant as to think that I disagree with you because I am ignorant of what goes on. I know that the lowest paid people often work the hardest. Until you understand why that doesn't make capitalism bad you don't understand the argument.

    3. The structure of society can not be designed on the exploits of the powerful because the powerful will simply adjust their tactics and continue exploiting under the new structure. The best you can do is have a system that works the best while being exploited. That means breaking up power structures so they don't accumulate in fewer hands. Business and government need to be kept separated. Socialism literally combines them. Giving the exploiters simultaneous control of government and business. Regulations are good. Min wage laws are good. Bailouts are bad. Government ownership of business is radioactive waste. Capitalism with social safety nets and regulations is literally the sweet spot, and it is exactly what we already have.

    4. Don't blame the failures of people on society. Some people cant succeed no matter what. If you can't admit that then you can't have an honest, intelligent discussion on this topic. Poverty and inequality are not evidence of a bad system, injustice, racism, or corruption; they are inevitable. You have to prove those claims with something other than "poverty exists" "racism exists" or "inequality is bad and exists mmmkay, therefore burn the world down"

    5. the percentage of people that live live as comfortable as me is higher here than anywhere else, so if you think it is too low then don't touch a fucking thing because you will make it go lower.

    6. The best system is one that gives everyone the freedom to build their own wealth. Own their own business. Keep the fruits of their own labor. And that is exactly what capitalism does. That some people choose to work for others doesn't change that. Everyone has the right to start their own business. "but but but the poors can't afford that right" is a bullshit argument. The only role of the government is to ALLOW IT. If your family and friends won't invest in you, there is probably a good reason. I had to work shit jobs because I couldn't afford it either. But my kids will because I am responsible enough to have savings and will support them. Why is it that generation after generation after generation some people never support their kids? That is not a fault with the system.

    [–]PeddaKondappa 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    In an economy based on fiat money, and where the state has sovereign control over the production of this money, taxation isn't even necessary for any purpose other than (1) controlling inflation and (2) controlling people. Taxation is used for government finance only when taxes are rendered in kind or in some token with intrinsic value, e.g. a tenant giving a share of his crop to his feudal lord. In our modern Judeo-Capitalist usurious system, taxation is nothing more than an instrument of socioeconomic engineering.

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    yeah they don't really need our meaningless paper. In the past the did confiscate gold during FDR's time. But now for money the reason for taxation is to make us feel like we have our skin in the game in the govt. They really want everyone to be on one of two sides and for it to be split 50% down the middle, liberals and repubs. So the tax rate is kept just high enough to make workers feel the pain of it while also giving just enough govt services to the poor to make them think it is good that others pay taxes.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Did they really confiscate people's gold? I imagine they gave them pieces of paper in return

    [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

    Taxes would be theoretically good in a National Socialist world, but in the present all of your taxes go towards war and you as a person get only 0 to 5 percent of advantages from your own tax money.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

    But why use them then, since with National Socialism, money printing would be the only tax. That means no complex IRS and forms to fill out. Just go on with your lives, the state will print what it needs.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    How dare you suggest something that would actually work! Don't you love getting taxed and watching it disappear into bottomless debt? /s

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

    I think you have a misconception of National Socialist economic theory. Printing money causes inflation. The wrath of Weimar Republic taught us never to print money beyond what is being used. Taxes could be used as a useful way to receive funding for infrastructure and direct public works. The reduction of taxes could be used for stimulation of an industry. The best part of National Socialist policy is that it is flexible. EG- Lets say that the artificial thread industry is at an extremely low level of production. To stimulate this, a National Socialist goverment can exempt the artificial thread industry from all taxes. When this happens, the value of these goods could be deducted from taxable income of an individual and taxable profits of an enterprise(i.e. you wouldn't have to pay taxes for the specified goods). This would cause the purchases of such goods to increase and would also be a way of increasing the low activity of the specified industry. Since our economic policy is flexible, the tax exemption would be immediately repealed as soon as the artificial thread industry would be fully employed.

    Read Gottfried Feder's works for a start.

    Also read Keynes. Schaht had come up with the same ideas as Keynes long before Keynes published his works(Also, just a reminder, actual keynesianism is only used during times of crisis, that was the original intent of Keynes, but his ideas got twisted by Marxists to suit their agenda). Also read Robert Owen.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

    I am not going to read anything, since I am already an economist of some renown. Over my career, I have forgotten the names associated with each theory, but have acquired an in-depth understanding of how things actually work.

    With that in mind, all taxation is only to oppress the people. It serves no other purpose. It is pure evil and an extremely wasteful way to fund a nation.

    Yes, currency creation is inflationary, but economic growth is deflationary. By removing the filthy subhuman parasites and their usury, the government printing for their purposes poses no problem whatsoever. Especially when using a hard (think gold-backed) currency.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

    Yes, currency creation is inflationary, but economic growth is deflationary. By removing the filthy subhuman parasites and their usury, the government printing for their purposes poses no problem whatsoever. Especially when using a hard (think gold-backed) currency.

    If you're talking about gold backed fiat, you should try searching up "The Great Depression" if you didn't already know about it.

    With that in mind, all taxation is only to oppress the people. It serves no other purpose. It is pure evil and an extremely wasteful way to fund a nation.

    Flat tax is usury. Progressive('Progressive' doesn't refer to leftist progressivism) tax is not. Progressive taxes increases as the income of the person increases. For instance, a poor worker would have to pay 4% tax. A worker in the state controlled worker union would have to pay 8% of his income to recieve benefits provided by the goverment(Most workers will be in the goverment controlled union). Lower middle-class would have to pay 12% and upper middle class 16%. In the same way, lower upper class would pay 20% and Bezos level rich would pay 28.5%.

    Btw, Schaht was indeed a traitor to the nation, but his economic policy was actually good.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

    You are not understanding. The great depression was engineered by the international jewish banskters. It has nothing to do with anything, just like any country that removes their central bankster organization is going to have economic warfare waged on it by everything else in the world. Look at Lybia and Gaddafi. They were doing too well, that's the main reason they got "liberated".

    And you are trying to educate me about progressive taxation. Sigh. I told you, I am an economist. You are being like a small child using baby talk to explain grow-up stuff to an adult. It's cute, but it's not productive. TAXES SERVE ONLY ONE PURPOSE: TO OPPRESS THE POPULATION. <-- That's a period. PERIOD. FULL STOP.

    What the governments of most "developed" nations do with regards to money creation is this:

    1. BORROW a billion from the banksters IN THE NAME OF THE POPULATION;

    2. PRINT (create) the billion in usable currency;

    3. SPEND the billion into the economy;

    4. TAX the people because they're indebted;

    5. PAY BACK the banksters the interest and sometimes also a bit of the capital;

    But before banksterism, it was this:

    1. MINT (create) the billion in usable currency;
    2. SPEND the billion into the economy;

    Now tell me, what makes the modern system better?

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I will reply to your argument in a bit.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

    The bankers love gold, quite literally. The biggest advocates of the gold standard are very much kosher. (((Friedman))), (((Greenspan))), (((Bernanke))). There are hundreds of disadvantages in the gold standard. The biggest disadvantage is the lack of flexibility. Limited amount of currency leads to more deflation. More deflation leads to restrictions on the Fed's ability to stimulate the economy which leads to even more deflation. This makes up a feedback loop which leads to more and more and more deflation. Falling prices cause economic growth to be stunted. Deflation also punishes debtors. Debt rises and lenders become wealthier and many lenders keep the money for themselves reducing GDP by a lot. Also, ever heard of 'speculators'? Speculative attacks tend to happen much more often on nations with fixed exchange rates.

    And I am seriously starting to doubt the fact that you're an 'economist'

    Goverments of developed nations don't borrow shit from bankers, bankers manipulate the economy to benefit them.

    This is what happens with a gold-backed currency.

    1. Kikes install puppet ruler
2. Haha money printer go brr, golds
3. Oh fuck
4. OH GOD
5. Oh Shit
6. Deflation is high help pls
7. Economic crisis due to stunted gold.
8. ???
9. Long nose tribe get control of both socioeconomical and political environment

    And this is what happens in a fiat currency

    1. Kikes puppet ruler
2. Haha mony printer go brr
3. Inflation is high help pls gibs monies
4. National Debt
5. Long nose tribe wins again.

    Yes, I know that the Reichsmark was backed by gold, but that contradicts your previous point. Reichsmark was literally insistuted by Schacht. IMO it was backed by gold temporarily to reduce inflation.

    American Economic Association (2000–2011). "The Elasticity of the Federal Reserve Note"

    Bottom line is, I'm not saying Keynesianism is the solution, but it is certainly a boost.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

    There are so many holes in that... Do you pretend it's some sort of "reasoning"?

    Either way, in 2020 I am no so mcuh advocating for a gold-backed currency. A true cryptocurrency such as GRIN would likely work best.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    There are so many holes in that... Do you pretend it's some sort of "reasoning"?

    Either way, in 2020 I am no so mcuh advocating for a gold-backed currency. A true cryptocurrency such as GRIN would likely work best.

    You did not really address my central point didja?

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    Because there isn't one. Listen, I get along with you very well, and frankly, educating people about economics is just too much damn work for me, so let's agree to disagree and leave it at that? ;-)

    [–]hajamieli 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Still nothing compared to Finland.

    Employer's fees

    On top of the salary you pay, there are also hidden taxes and fees your empoyer pays. Those are about 25% of your salary cost.

    Income tax

    30-70%

    Value-added tax

    24% for normal things, 14% for foods, 10% for medicine and culture.

    Other goods related taxes

    Hundreds of percent for fuels, alcohol, tobacco etc

    Customs

    24% for everything you import unless in previous category, plus some petty fees from the privatized Post office monopoly company wanting their share while spending more time moving the package 2 km than the 12000 km it took to arrive into the country.

    Property tax

    No such thing since 2005

    Capital gains

    30% or so too

    Inheritance tax

    Yeah, same.

    [–]PencilPusher55 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Starting to understand what the Europeans were saying. They get the shit taxed out of them but at least they get something back.

    [–][deleted]  (9 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]Canbot 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (8 children)

      Tell that to Zimbabwe. They freed their people by printing money and handing it out. Now they have your utopia.

      [–]PeddaKondappa 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      In an economy based on fiat money, and where the state has sovereign control over the production of this money, taxation isn't even necessary for any purpose other than (1) controlling inflation and (2) controlling people.

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

      Exactly what the USA is doing right now, but they hand money out only to the rich. That's better, right? I MEAN, RIGHT?

      [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

      How did I get it then?

      [–]alkhd 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      4 trillion divided by 330 million people is 12k usd.

      4 trillion is the amount of debt picked up due to corona.

      Less than 400 billion went to stimulus checks. I wonder where 90% of the money went.

      [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Yes, that is fucked up. No, it doesn't justify destroying America. No, destroying America will not fix the problem. If you burn it all down and start over the exact same people will be in power, doing the exact same shit.

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Or different people, doing the exact same shit.

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      You got a pacifier.

      [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I'm not talking about bailout money, I didn't get any of that. What I got is a job that pays more than twice what I could get anywhere else in the world doing the exact same thing, including where my parents came from, simply because I'm in America.