• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Modes of failure in Socialism

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:
Why do they feel they need to hang around and change the system to their liking here?



I could say the same thing to you. You don't like the way the country currently is? Leave.

The beautiful thing about this country is one's ability to change it if it isn't how you like it. So, why leave?


Also, since you're such a socialism hater, why don't you address my "flat" tax situation above? You don't want to steal from the rich and give to the poor, then start handing over more money.
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
Task Force 16 wrote:
Why do they feel they need to hang around and change the system to their liking here?



I could say the same thing to you. You don't like the way the country currently is? Leave.

The beautiful thing about this country is one's ability to change it if it isn't how you like it. So, why leave?


Also, since you're such a socialism hater, why don't you address my "flat" tax situation above? You don't want to steal from the rich and give to the poor, then start handing over more money.
The current state of this country is not what it use to be. this country was not built on socialistic or communist ideology, it was built on individualism. An individuals opportunity to prosper was only limited by their own resourcefulness, determination,and ingenuity. That was the "American Way". What was wrong with that?

You say that selfishness is the culprit. I say jealosy and envy are.

Why should I turn over more of my wages? I'll have you know that according to the US statistcs, I'm suppose to be living in poverty due to the fact that my income puts me on one of the lowest rungs of the income ladder. Funny though, I've never felt like I was living in poverty. I work for my living and I don't need governments help, nor do I want it. In case you haven't noticed, every time the rich get taxed more, us working folks start losing our jobs. I for one would rather see the rich not be taxed more, so I can keep my job.

If you want to hand over more of your earnings to some deadbeat that won't work, just so you both can be "equal", then be my guest. I'll keep my money and guns, and you can stuff change up your a$$.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:
Why should I turn over more of my wages? I'll have you know that according to the US statistcs, I'm suppose to be living in poverty due to the fact that my income puts me on one of the lowest rungs of the income ladder. Funny though, I've never felt like I was living in poverty. I work for my living and I don't need governments help, nor do I want it.


No no, see, that's just it, you're missing the point.

Those roads you drive to work on? You aren't contributing your fair share for those. Those street lights that help you see at night? You aren't contributing your fair share for those. That FDA that makes sure the stuff you eat and inject is safe? Yea, you aren't paying your fair share for that. That USDA that makes sure that hamburger you just ate wasn't actually your neighbor's cat? You aren't paying enough for them. That EPA/DEP that make sure you have clean air to breathe and woods to walk in? You aren't paying your fair share for them either. That library/police/fire/military/nameagovernmentdepartment? You aren't contributing your fair share for those either.

The "government's help" that you don't want goes WAAAAAY beyond welfare and you aren't paying even remotely close to your fair share of any of it. The $150,000/year+ crowd is carrying you like a useless sack of potatoes. Butyet you say youdon't like socialism, soI proposed a solution for you. Pay your fair share. Youdon't want the rich to betaxedmore heavily than the poor,then start forkingover the $36,000/year needed to cover the services you receive so someone else doesn't have to paythe tab for you.

YOU ARE THE DEADBEAT in this current system. YOU are the guy not being taxed enough to cover what you're draining out of the system. You need to rub your eyes a little and wake up to reality. This isn't about people on welfare. This is about who is paying a sufficient amount of tax to cover what they're taking from the government. You aren't. If you're so anti-socialism and the having the rich carry the poor, then start handing over your fair share. If you don't like that idea then stfu and go sit down and think about how "evil" socialism is allowing you to receive the services you do, while not sending 120% of your paycheck the government.

Do you get it now?
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
Task Force 16 wrote:
Why should I turn over more of my wages? I'll have you know that according to the US statistcs, I'm suppose to be living in poverty due to the fact that my income puts me on one of the lowest rungs of the income ladder. Funny though, I've never felt like I was living in poverty. I work for my living and I don't need governments help, nor do I want it.


No no, see, that's just it, you're missing the point.

Those roads you drive to work on? You aren't contributing your fair share for those. Those street lights that help you see at night? You aren't contributing your fair share for those. That FDA that makes sure the stuff you eat and inject is safe? Yea, you aren't paying your fair share for that. That USDA that makes sure that hamburger you just ate wasn't actually your neighbor's cat? You aren't paying enough for them. That EPA/DEP that make sure you have clean air to breathe and woods to walk in? You aren't paying your fair share for them either. That library/police/fire/military/nameagovernmentdepartment? You aren't contributing your fair share for those either.

The "government's help" that you don't want goes WAAAAAY beyond welfare and you aren't paying even remotely close to your fair share of any of it. The $150,000/year+ crowd is carrying you like a useless sack of potatoes. Butyet you say youdon't like socialism, soI proposed a solution for you. Pay your fair share. Youdon't want the rich to betaxedmore heavily than the poor,then start forkingover the $36,000/year needed to cover the services you receive so someone else doesn't have to paythe tab for you.

YOU ARE THE DEADBEAT in this current system. YOU are the guy not being taxed enough to cover what you're draining out of the system. You need to rub your eyes a little and wake up to reality. This isn't about people on welfare. This is about who is paying a sufficient amount of tax to cover what they're taking from the government. You aren't. If you're so anti-socialism and the having the rich carry the poor, then start handing over your fair share. If you don't like that idea then stfu and go sit down and think about how "evil" socialism is allowing you to receive the services you do, while not sending 120% of your paycheck the government.

Do you get it now?

You seem to be getting your arguement twisted up.

Liberal Democrats argue that it's the "evil" rich that haven't been paying their fair share. They liike to play the wealth envy card, ya know. Buys allot of votes from the jealous poor.

I live out in the country, we don't have many street lights out here.

I pay my share of the road taxes every time I buy gas and my tags.

If I want to make sure that I'm getting hamburger I can raise my own beef and slaughter it. or go hunting.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

It's a fallacious argument. A great proportion of the federal budget pays for things that many of us would consider beyond the purview of federal authority under the Constitution. Many other things such as the defense budget are bloated with pork such as paying for things that the DoD does not want or need. Obama's budget is mind boggling more egregious in these regards. So the argument is fallacious in that we end up paying for things we do not want, do not need and do not support. Furthermore, gov't interference in the market drives up the actual costs of many things that would otherwise be within the grasp of individuals and families so the federal budget includes monies to pay for things that without the gov't interfering in the first place the citizen could and would pay for him/herself.

Additionally fallacious is that all citizens receive or use services/benefits equally. This is not at all the case. Furthermore, many people, especially retirees, "use" government services because gov't interference makes private pay, private sector services difficult or overly expensive to obtain. Some services/benefits are used disproportionally by higher earners such as air traffic infrastructure and roadways, others are used disproportionally by lower earners. The solidly middle class typically use the least number of services/benefits as they don't qualify for the aide benefits/services for the poor and they don't overly burden the infrastructure because they cannot afford to do so.

So the problem with a flat everyone pays their "fair share" idea is that it is pretty much impossible to figure out what that fair share is for each family or individual based on direct and indirect benefits used or received. Just taking the federal budget and dividing it by the number of taxpayers or population only tells you how much the gov't is wasting, er spending per capita, not the rate at which people are benefiting from the spending.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

deepdiver wrote:
It's a fallacious argument. A great proportion of the federal budget pays for things that many of us would consider beyond the purview of federal authority under the Constitution. Many other things such as the defense budget are bloated with pork such as paying for things that the DoD does not want or need. Obama's budget is mind boggling more egregious in these regards. So the argument is fallacious in that we end up paying for things we do not want, do not need and do not support. Furthermore, gov't interference in the market drives up the actual costs of many things that would otherwise be within the grasp of individuals and families so the federal budget includes monies to pay for things that without the gov't interfering in the first place the citizen could and would pay for him/herself.

Additionally fallacious is that all citizens receive or use services/benefits equally. This is not at all the case. Furthermore, many people, especially retirees, "use" government services because gov't interference makes private pay, private sector services difficult or overly expensive to obtain. Some services/benefits are used disproportionally by higher earners such as air traffic infrastructure and roadways, others are used disproportionally by lower earners. The solidly middle class typically use the least number of services/benefits as they don't qualify for the aide benefits/services for the poor and they don't overly burden the infrastructure because they cannot afford to do so.

So the problem with a flat everyone pays their "fair share" idea is that it is pretty much impossible to figure out what that fair share is for each family or individual based on direct and indirect benefits used or received. Just taking the federal budget and dividing it by the number of taxpayers or population only tells you how much the gov't is wasting, er spending per capita, not the rate at which people are benefiting from the spending.




That doesn't change the point of my arugment: a percentage based income tax is a socialistic idea. It makes the rich pay more and yet the rich do not use anymore government services than the rest of us. However, I don't see anyone complaining about percentage based taxes, only about keeping the percentages all equal, which... still isn't fair. Taxes should be a flat AMOUNT (not percentage)across the board if you want real, true capitalism and equality. See what I'm saying? I don't disagree with anything you said, but it's all beside the point.


Example: Everyone whines about marginal tax rates. People don't want to be bumped up to the next tax bracket and pay a higher percentage in tax. But, really, what does that matter in the light of the fact that the tax is percentage based to begin with? Ok, so we make the tax a flat 20% across the board, so what? You make $10,000 a year you only have to pay $2,000 in tax. You make $1,000,000 a year and you pay a whopping $200,000 in tax. Did the guy that made the $1,000,000 actually use $198,000 more in government services? Of course not. In fact, it was probably the guy that made the $10k that used more services and received more subsidies. That's socialism, but no one complains about it. Why? Because it benefits them. It benefits the poor and middle class because they get a free ride. It even benefits the rich. The better off the middle class is, the more money the rich make. The rich own the corporations and the middle class are they customers. The rich pay more tax in order to let the middle class have more (or anything) to spend, and that money comes right back to them.
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

deepdiver wrote:
It's a fallacious argument. A great proportion of the federal budget pays for things that many of us would consider beyond the purview of federal authority under the Constitution. Many other things such as the defense budget are bloated with pork such as paying for things that the DoD does not want or need. Obama's budget is mind boggling more egregious in these regards. So the argument is fallacious in that we end up paying for things we do not want, do not need and do not support. Furthermore, gov't interference in the market drives up the actual costs of many things that would otherwise be within the grasp of individuals and families so the federal budget includes monies to pay for things that without the gov't interfering in the first place the citizen could and would pay for him/herself.

Additionally fallacious is that all citizens receive or use services/benefits equally. This is not at all the case. Furthermore, many people, especially retirees, "use" government services because gov't interference makes private pay, private sector services difficult or overly expensive to obtain. Some services/benefits are used disproportionally by higher earners such as air traffic infrastructure and roadways, others are used disproportionally by lower earners. The solidly middle class typically use the least number of services/benefits as they don't qualify for the aide benefits/services for the poor and they don't overly burden the infrastructure because they cannot afford to do so.

So the problem with a flat everyone pays their "fair share" idea is that it is pretty much impossible to figure out what that fair share is for each family or individual based on direct and indirect benefits used or received. Just taking the federal budget and dividing it by the number of taxpayers or population only tells you how much the gov't is wasting, er spending per capita, not the rate at which people are benefiting from the spending.
I'll bet that if about 80% of the Federal programs were shut down and done away with and put a stop to about 90% of the Federal interference in the free market, our economy would fix it's self in no time. Interprising individuals make things work right, government just fauls things up.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:
I'll bet that if about 80% of the Federal programs were shut down and done away with and put a stop to about 90% of the Federal interference in the free market, our economy would fix it's self in no time. Interprising individuals make things work right, government just fauls things up.



You don't remember that uh... what was it called... it was a small event, it's hard to recall.... uhhhh... oh yea, the great depression? Letting the free market work at its finest. :quirky
 

hellfogg

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
74
Location
Richmond, VA, ,
imported post

Regarding the Great Depression caused by the evils of the "free-market"
http://mises.org/story/2902


And, concerning paying my share, should I be forced to pay taxes for government expenses that I morally disagree with? Don't forget that we are the only country in the ENTIRE world that imprisons people for not paying taxes. When did I agree to contribute my share to the government for the "common good" of the people?

After all that, do I have the right to be left alone, to be able to do what I want as long as it doesn't violate someone's rights, without worry that the government will intervene stealing my money and regulating my life?
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

hellfogg wrote:
Regarding the Great Depression caused by the evils of the "free-market"
http://mises.org/story/2902


And, concerning paying my share, should I be forced to pay taxes for government expenses that I morally disagree with? Don't forget that we are the only country in the ENTIRE world that imprisons people for not paying taxes. When did I agree to contribute my share to the government for the "common good" of the people?

After all that, do I have the right to be left alone, to be able to do what I want as long as it doesn't violate someone's rights, without worry that the government will intervene stealing my money and regulating my life?

EXCELLENT FIND!!!!!!

I'm sending this link to everyone on my email list.
 

Chaingun81

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
581
Location
Centreville, Virginia, USA
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
Chaingun81 wrote:
So, unless you are trying to make the case that humans take after insects and bacteria rather than large mammals, your point is senseless.

LOL You know it's pretty ironic that you make a stupid statement like that becausemankind as a whole has a lot in common with a virus.



Let me ask you a question.

Would you rather make $10,000/year and pay 5% in taxes ($9,524 take home) or would you rather make $5,000,000/year and pay 40% in taxes ($4,807,692.30 take home)? Is the 35% tax break really that much of an incentive to choose the lower income?



If you're all about fair taxation and not having the rich pay more, then I have a proposal for you. A flat tax. No, not a flat percentage tax, because that has the rich paying more. From now on, we're all going to pay for the services we receive.

The current break-even point for paying for all the services youreceive in the USis an income of $150,000/year for an individual. Tax on that $150,000 is currently $35,978. This means each person receives approximately $36,000 in services from state and federal government each year. This is now your new tax. Every person in America will pay $36,000/year in taxes. Fairis fair. Wouldn't want the rich to have to pay more or the poor to get away without paying their fair share.

Are you happy with this new system? It's the fairest tax there is.



Obvouisly you're not happy because you're a broke ass making $30,000 a year so your income is now negative. So just think about this for a second. If you make UNDER $150,000 a year in this country then you're a NET LOSS to the tax system. While you cry about people on welfare your ass isn't even remotely close to breaking even either. The people in this country making over $150,000 are carrying you along. So before you point fingers in regards to entitlements and all these other socialist ideas, take a look in the financial mirror and ask yourself whether you really want to pay your fair share. If you do, I'm sure the IRS willwelcome the extra money with open wallet.


YOU are a virus with your sick socialist ideas. Maybe you're a broke ass making 30k a year,that's probably why you are such a envious commie too. I actually have a master's degree and a professional job and make a lot more than 30k a year. Even if i had to pay 36k in taxes, i'd still have enough to live on.

But what you outlined is not a fair system, not in the slightest. First of all, paying flat percentage is a lot more fair and motivating system than what we have in place. Flat tax (with the current budget size) is just not realistic. Yes, i can sill pay it but many other people won't be able too. So it just plain senseless. You just come up with a completely inane argument to prove that stupid system is not stupid. I have no desire debating with you any longer. I am too busy working so i can pay more in taxes to pay for socialist money whores like yourself...
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

Chaingun81 wrote:
But what you outlined is not a fair system, not in the slightest. First of all, paying flat percentage is a lot more fair and motivating system than what we have in place. Flat tax (with the current budget size) is just not realistic. I am too busy working so i can pay more in taxes to pay for socialist money whores like yourself...



So what you've just said is that a flat tax amount isn't fair because it isn't realistic and we need to stick with the current, socialist tax system. Yet you turn around and call me the socialist. You then make another direction reversal and call me an "evious commie." If what you claim is true, then what do I have to envy? You claim there's no incentive to advance in income with our current tax system, so shouldn't you be envying the poor people for how little tax they pay?

Before I really point out your stupidity in detail and make you cry, I'm going to give you a chance to go back and read ALL of my posts and try again.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:
hellfogg wrote:
Regarding the Great Depression caused by the evils of the "free-market"
http://mises.org/story/2902


And, concerning paying my share, should I be forced to pay taxes for government expenses that I morally disagree with? Don't forget that we are the only country in the ENTIRE world that imprisons people for not paying taxes. When did I agree to contribute my share to the government for the "common good" of the people?

After all that, do I have the right to be left alone, to be able to do what I want as long as it doesn't violate someone's rights, without worry that the government will intervene stealing my money and regulating my life?

EXCELLENT FIND!!!!!!

I'm sending this link to everyone on my email list.



I got a good lol from that article.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
346
Location
, ,
imported post

income tax of any sort has no place in a free country, because that would assume the government owns you, and your work. and agrees to let you keep a percentage of it.

income tax is extreme violence.
 

Slayer of Paper

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
460
Location
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
imported post

I view it as my patriotic duty to pay as little in taxes and fees as I can get away with.

You can do your part too:
Don't speed, tickets are just another tax
Drive as economical a car as you can, and pay less in gas taxes
Barter for as much as possible
Buy from out of state (Internet and mail order)
Get out of debt, and never use credit again, for any purpose
Avoid toll roads
Avoid activities that collect a government fee (i.e. zoos, parks, etc)
Grieve your property valuation to lower your property tax
Alter your W4 so that you are paying only what you are required. A refund is nothing more than giving the government an interest-free loan.
Quit smoking
Quit drinking or brew your own
Buy used, and from private citizens if at all possible
Don't play the lottery
 

Chaingun81

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
581
Location
Centreville, Virginia, USA
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
Chaingun81 wrote:
But what you outlined is not a fair system, not in the slightest. First of all, paying flat percentage is a lot more fair and motivating system than what we have in place. Flat tax (with the current budget size) is just not realistic. I am too busy working so i can pay more in taxes to pay for socialist money whores like yourself...



So what you've just said is that a flat tax amount isn't fair because it isn't realistic and we need to stick with the current, socialist tax system. Yet you turn around and call me the socialist. You then make another direction reversal and call me an "evious commie." If what you claim is true, then what do I have to envy? You claim there's no incentive to advance in income with our current tax system, so shouldn't you be envying the poor people for how little tax they pay?

Before I really point out your stupidity in detail and make you cry, I'm going to give you a chance to go back and read ALL of my posts and try again.
Well, apparently you have sooooo much time on your hands that you can post all this crap. I don't - i have to work. So, as i mentioned before, i gonna stop arguing with you and go back to work, so i can support leeches like you. Arguing with you is like talking to an ape - just a waste of time. So go ahead and post whatever you want - i have to deal with enough ******* idiots on a daily basis - i don't need another one online....
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

Chaingun81 wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
Chaingun81 wrote:
But what you outlined is not a fair system, not in the slightest. First of all, paying flat percentage is a lot more fair and motivating system than what we have in place. Flat tax (with the current budget size) is just not realistic. I am too busy working so i can pay more in taxes to pay for socialist money whores like yourself...



So what you've just said is that a flat tax amount isn't fair because it isn't realistic and we need to stick with the current, socialist tax system. Yet you turn around and call me the socialist. You then make another direction reversal and call me an "evious commie." If what you claim is true, then what do I have to envy? You claim there's no incentive to advance in income with our current tax system, so shouldn't you be envying the poor people for how little tax they pay?

Before I really point out your stupidity in detail and make you cry, I'm going to give you a chance to go back and read ALL of my posts and try again.
Well, apparently you have sooooo much time on your hands that you can post all this crap. I don't - i have to work. So, as i mentioned before, i gonna stop arguing with you and go back to work, so i can support leeches like you. Arguing with you is like talking to an ape - just a waste of time. So go ahead and post whatever you want - i have to deal with enough @#$%ing idiots on a daily basis - i don't need another one online....




Then don't post in the first place. If you start an argument with someone then attempt to pull the "I'm too cool for the internet" line and walk away, you just come off looking dumb.


It isn't my fault I'm allowed to play on the internet at work and you aren't.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

ImFromTheGovernmentAndImHereToHelp wrote:
income tax of any sort has no place in a free country, because that would assume the government owns you, and your work. and agrees to let you keep a percentage of it.

income tax is extreme violence.

For once Johnny makes a decent observation. Be careful what you wish for though, as explained in my previous posts.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

I did not post this topic with any interest in debating the various shades of socialism, to split hairs over what part you think is bad or good, etc.

The actual TOPIC was, how should it be best defeated by one who wishes to, and by what means.

I shall restate my theory.

As a system of taxing the useful to buy votes from the degenerates, the more of a hard-working patriotic conservative you act like, the more you end up feeding the complete opposite.

I do not approach this from the "why should I bother working if the free ride pays more" perspective.

I approach this from the 'most effective weapon to throw down your enemy' perspective.

I would like someone to site for me, if they can, a mode of failure in Marxism/Socialism/Communism/Liberalism other than collapsing under it's own weight once the condition of having more who feed off of it than contribute to it is met. And by it's nature, this threshold is perpetually approached.

By my logic, the most efficient and effective means of defeating it, is to accelerate it's own stated purpose. Burden it beyond it's capacity as soon as possible. Fighting it and being 'responsible' only feeds it and protracts it's existence.
 
Top