It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Millionaires and Billionaires shouldnt pay a penny in taxes!

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by ANOK
 


One (of many) problems with the Marxist theories is that somebody still takes the "excess".


Who mentioned Marxism, not me. It was in that quote but it's not what I'm talking about.


Marxist governments take some of the "excess".


There really are no 'Marxist Governments'. Marxism is not a form of government, it is a political path to communism. Communism is a more radical version of socialism. It calls for a temporary state system, but ultimately it is a stateless system.


Companies that "manage" the "excesses" take some.


Companies have to make profit, or they fail. The excess, surplus values, is their profit. Without it the company fails. Unless they incorporate, and then they can get the state to float them.

Socialists see surplus value taken by the capitalist as theft, just as you see taxes taken by the government as theft. I see no difference between the two, both are forms of authority, both steal from the workers. Capitalists steal from us to make themselves wealthy, government steals from us in order to protect, and create the right for them to do that.


Government "officials" then take the money. Some comes directly from the sales (taxes) and some comes as payoffs from outside companies. This is how they do it in China.


I don't care how they do it in China. China does not have worker ownership. State ownership is not worker ownership. Worker ownership does not require a state system. The ultimate goal of Marxists, communists, socialists, anarchists, is the same thing, free association. The difference is the path to get there, Marxism being a gradual political route, anarchism being a direct action route.


In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.


Free association (communism and anarchism)

So no there doesn't have to be a state that takes anything. But socialism is not a profit making economic system, it is a needs based system. Instead of the artificial scarcity of resources due to underproduction (required to maintain profits), we would be liberated to freely produce for our needs and desires.


edit on 8/2/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
>>
Sorry, but if capitalists didn't pay taxes they would not create jobs. It would simply mean they would make more profit.
>>

I wanted to reply something lengthy, but you summed it up nicely with this one sentence.
The OP must be very young/extremely naive.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by elitegamer23
 


Lol, if that were the case than making billions inprofits after taxes would be enough. The truth is no amount will ever be enough for these swine. They already have millions and billions of dollars, I don't see how letting them keep even more would equate to them suddenly not being greedy anymore.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
No, I'm serious, though. No more taxes. At. All.

Let it all crash. Starve the beast. Anarchy. And such.

Roads can crumble, militaries grind to a halt, social services cease. Sounds awesome. I'm sure everything would work out just fine.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by flexy123
>>
Sorry, but if capitalists didn't pay taxes they would not create jobs. It would simply mean they would make more profit.
>>

I wanted to reply something lengthy, but you summed it up nicely with this one sentence.
The OP must be very young/extremely naive.


so just because you cant tell this is satire im young and naive.

i bet anyone who doesnt agree with you is young and naive.

please give it a rest.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by lifeform11
and what guarantee is there that these super rich tax free people would actually use the money saved to create more jobs rather than just extra profits?


Or ship those Job overseas and outsources like WILLARD THE RAT did!



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Everybodys got their finger in the China pie.


All this talk about the rich is right out of the communist, Stalin days, development of the Russian communist party.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
No, I'm serious, though. No more taxes. At. All.

Let it all crash. Starve the beast. Anarchy. And such.

Roads can crumble, militaries grind to a halt, social services cease. Sounds awesome. I'm sure everything would work out just fine.


Outside of the Revenue Act of 1862 which was repealed in 1872, The United States of America managed to grow, flourish and prosper just fine without any income tax. Standing military's are not a Constitutional mandate. "Social Services" are not a Constitutional mandate, and between 1900 and 1909 the U.S. economy saw significant growth. Histrionics do nothing to explain income taxation and if there were no income taxation there would still be taxation.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by stanguilles7
No, I'm serious, though. No more taxes. At. All.

Let it all crash. Starve the beast. Anarchy. And such.

Roads can crumble, militaries grind to a halt, social services cease. Sounds awesome. I'm sure everything would work out just fine.


Outside of the Revenue Act of 1862 which was repealed in 1872, The United States of America managed to grow, flourish and prosper just fine without any income tax. Standing military's are not a Constitutional mandate. "Social Services" are not a Constitutional mandate, and between 1900 and 1909 the U.S. economy saw significant growth. Histrionics do nothing to explain income taxation and if there were no income taxation there would still be taxation.



Agreed. Everything in the 1800's was super-nifty. That's when men were men and women were women, and children were free to work 80 hours a week, barefoot in a factory if they wanted. Good times.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
All this talk about the rich is right out of the communist, Stalin days, development of the Russian communist party.


This kind of talk started way before then, right about the time capitalism replaced feudalism in the mid 1700's.

This kind of talk was started in France, Germany, and Britain long before the Russians appropriated the terms for their own agenda.

Before Lenin there were the Owenites for example.


Owenites were those followers of Robert Owen a social reformer and one of the founders of socialism and the cooperative movement.

In the 1850s the Owenites adopted secularism. Notable secularist Owenites included:

Josiah Gimson
Henry Hetherington
George Jacob Holyoake
Charles Southwell who was an Owenite ’socialist missionary’


Owenites


The cooperative movement began in Europe in the 19th century, primarily in Britain and France, although The Shore Porters Society claims to be one of the world's first cooperatives, being established in Aberdeen in 1498 (although it has since demutualized to become a private partnership).[1] The industrial revolution and the increasing mechanization of the economy transformed society and threatened the livelihoods of many workers. The concurrent labour and social movements and the issues they attempted to address describe the climate at the time....


History of the cooperative movement

Nothing to do with Russia, or China, Or Lenin, Or Mao. Nothing to do with what happened in those despot nations. Owen would have been just as appalled as you and I.


edit on 8/2/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 





Agreed. Everything in the 1800's was super-nifty. That's when men were men and women were women, and children were free to work 80 hours a week, barefoot in a factory if they wanted. Good times.


That's the thing about the histrionic, they don't much care for facts. The federal government was not able to effectively legislate any child labor laws until 1938 - some fifteen years after the passage of the "income" tax which had nothing to do with Fair Labor Standards Act. In 1916 Congress attempted to regulate child labor with the Keating-Owen Act which was struck down by the Supreme Court.

Income taxation had nothing at all to do with what you are attempting to link it to. Facts happen as they happen regardless of how you feel about it.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



The point is though it took government legislation to stop capitalists using children for labour.

That is the problem with capitalism, it requires government to keep it under control.

Most if not all of those kind of government interventions came from the workers demanding them. Government didn't want to change anything, and it took years to get them to finally change the law. Government would rarely give the working class anything unless the capitalist class could take advantage of it, for example the state education system. Do I really need to explain?



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


So, you're saying that stuff wasnt super-nifty in the 1800's?

Now you're changing your story!

Histrionically, of course.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


So, you're saying that stuff wasnt super-nifty in the 1800's?

Now you're changing your story!

Histrionically, of course.


If all you can rely upon is a strawman argument you are woefully behind. Try to catch up. I refuted your hapless attempt to link child labor laws with income taxation. I, of course, never said "stuff was super nifty in the 1800's" anymore than I am claiming stuff is super nifty today. What I did assert, as a matter of fact is that economic expansion from the mid 1860's to the 1900's was more than robust:


The rapid economic development following the Civil War laid the groundwork for the modern U.S. industrial economy. By 1890, the USA leaped ahead of Britain for first place in manufacturing output.


The United States didn't fall apart as you so histrionically suggested it would and of course, taxation existed in these times even without income taxation.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by elitegamer23
 





think of all the jobs that would be created...


a common fallacy.

why would they want to create jobs in the us,
when they can get 3rd world people to work for a dollar a week?


they should be taxed for EVERY single job they have offshored


how much?


oh, not much,

just enough to pay for the creation of a minimum wage + health insurance job
within the usa for every single job they've offshored

if a business has 100% of it's employees in the usa
they pay 0 tax, maybe even a small deduction
[and/or a discount on how much they need to contribute to obamacare]
to help them keep those jobs home



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Well, your just plain wrong. That's all there is to it.

Back in the day taxes on the rich, and on corporations were WAY WAY higher than they are now. And guess what? The economy was doing way better, the middle class was huge compared to what it is now, there were more jobs, better paying jobs, etc.

I don't care what type of faulty logic you are trying to use here, because it doesn't matter. We don't have to guess. We already know. Taxes on the rich and on corporations have been falling for decades, and along with those falling taxes came the falling of the middle class, of jobs, of wages, etc.

Your ideas are fantasy and nothing more. As I said we already have rock solid proof, the past, which proves that high taxes on the rich, and on corporations leads to a more robust economy, more jobs, and better jobs.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You do seem to rely heavily on the ad hominems yourself, oh superfluous one.

No, you said: "Outside of the Revenue Act of 1862 which was repealed in 1872, The United States of America managed to grow, flourish and prosper just fine without any income tax."

But, when you failed to neglect how it grew and flourished, and who, specifically profited from said growth. Could we do away with income taxes in the US tomorrow? Sure. But who would flourish is the part that might require some more analysis i suspect you arent willing to ponder.

But, as I've mentioned before, your ability to utilize straw men buried in pseudo eloquence is noteworthy, and will be receiving my stars.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Your wrong really about Stalin. Whatever happend before him along these lines, the current flow comming out of liberal america follows the Stalin and some of his conteps model for political takeover from the vested interests of the ruling powers and finacial elites, land holders of any size really and crushing any intelectual opposition.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 





You do seem to rely heavily on the ad hominems yourself, oh superfluous one.


If you want to call histrionic an ad hominem this is your choice but lets go back to that post that compelled me to accuse you of histrionics:




No, I'm serious, though. No more taxes. At. All.

Let it all crash. Starve the beast. Anarchy. And such.

Roads can crumble, militaries grind to a halt, social services cease. Sounds awesome. I'm sure everything would work out just fine.


This is hardly an example of rational thought. Roads are crumbling today with income taxation in place. For roughly 125 years this nation existed with only one instance of a decade long income tax and during the periods where there was no income tax, the history books do not insist that these were periods of anarchy in this nation. Only the histrionic do that.




But, when you failed to neglect how it grew and flourished, and who, specifically profited from said growth. Could we do away with income taxes in the US tomorrow? Sure. But who would flourish is the part that might require some more analysis i suspect you arent willing to ponder.


If you were willing to ponder it, wouldn't you have least made some attempt to offer up supporting data? Given that we have a protest movement calling themselves the "99%" in the U.S. protesting the "1%" and weekly there are countless articles about the economic disparity in this nation, it seems fairly certain you didn't ponder what you wrote at all.

Wealth, Income, and Power


So far there are only tentative projections -- based on the price of housing and stock in July 2009 -- on the effects of the Great Recession on the wealth distribution. They suggest that average Americans have been hit much harder than wealthy Americans. Edward Wolff, the economist we draw upon the most in this document, concludes that there has been an "astounding" 36.1% drop in the wealth (marketable assets) of the median household since the peak of the housing bubble in 2007. By contrast, the wealth of the top 1% of households dropped by far less: just 11.1%. So as of April 2010, it looks like the wealth distribution is even more unequal than it was in 2007


Wait...did we do away with income tax in 2007? No, we did not.

How Rich are the Super Rich Today with Income Taxation?

Growing Income Gap May Leave U.S. Vulnerable

The United States of Inequality

Income Inequality

Middle-Class Areas Shrink as Income Gap Grows, New Report Finds

America’s Growing Income Gap, by the Numbers

It is quite clear you did not ponder this at all. How did you put it?




But who would flourish is the part that might require some more analysis i suspect you arent willing to ponder.


What are you afraid of, that the middle class and poor will flourish if income taxation is repealed? Because surely by now you must realize that the rich are doing just fine with income taxation in place.


edit on 2-8-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
Your wrong really about Stalin. Whatever happend before him along these lines, the current flow comming out of liberal america follows the Stalin and some of his conteps model for political takeover from the vested interests of the ruling powers and finacial elites, land holders of any size really and crushing any intelectual opposition.


Did I mention Stalin?

Liberals are not socialists.

"Liberalism is not socialism and never will be", Winston Churchill, 1908, when he was the party candidate for the Liberal Party, Dundee Scotland.

I am not talking about American liberalism. I am talking about socialism in it's historical context. You can't judge Soviet Russia etc., using today's twisted definition of terms. Everything started changing after WWII as liberalism was sold as socialism, to reduce the potential for a new revolutionary working class, as there was prior to WWII.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join