Login or register
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
#1237 - ManicalMayhem
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/22/2012) [-]
Not defending Mitt at all promise me he is a prick, but income tax is the problem to begin with Taxation is theft. The government steals money from it's good hard working legitimate Taxpayers and gives it to those who claim to be "In Need" the problem with that system is that it deters hard working individuals from working to their true potential. (Example: If taxing Cigarettes more is to deter cigarette smokers, wouldn't taxing income deter working?)

Now in a free market with no income tax at all means of course some of those programs would have to be cut, but most of them come from state level anyway just so you know. The people you mentioned that "pay no income tax", as we can all agree would need some help now and then, would not go un-cared for because truly good people with money would still donate money of their own free will and not of taxes to "Private Charities" which would help people. (Pic is an example) Problem is dependency on government, no one should be dependent on government programs.
User avatar #1265 to #1237 - taxation
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/22/2012) [-]
I am so not theft! I am surprised though at how much the word "taxation" is now used on this site, when I signed up I thought it'd be damned rarely used on a site like this.
#1257 to #1237 - oxan
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/22/2012) [-]
Oh, the free market has magical healing powers, does it?

Sigh... here we go again:

Capitalism and the free market destroys quality of living. Companies, with few exceptions such as your picture, are out to make a profit and nothing more. Right now, companies are posting record profits, even in Australia. Why? Because they're firing people. They fire people, and just get who's left to work twice as hard.

Do you really think the odd business doing the ethical thing will be able to cope with the massive amount of unemployed people, who have no aid, since the government isn't able to afford welfare because of the free market? **** ******.

You're exchanging a perceived 'theft' with slavery. Yeah, people will work to make money, because they have no welfare, but companies will be able to exploit unemployment by hiring at minimum wage. That's wage slavery and exploitation, my friend.

Now, what do taxes go to? They go to infrastructure, they go to services, such as police, fire, healthcare, national defence and all that jazz.

Try again, Libertardian.
#1327 to #1257 - anon id: 144e5260
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/29/2012) [-]
Just an fyi, that comic is from A. Wyatt Mann. Why don't you go ahead and read some of his comics?
User avatar #1328 to #1327 - oxan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/30/2012) [-]
I found that picture on /pol/. Makes sense.
#1291 to #1257 - anon id: fb495b0f
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/22/2012) [-]
You're confusing Capitalism with Corporatism. The free-market works, and has worked in the past. It was the gov't meddling that has caused them to extend beyond their means. How quickly do you wish to forget the bailouts that were detrimental to our economy? Those companies should have FAILED. They should no longer exist. Instead they should be run by more capable people.

Striping the free-market of Bankruptcy is devaluing to the paper-monetary system. A federal tax is need to provide infrastructure and some of the services that you said, but healthcare is a competitive market, it's not amongst police, fire, and national defence. Don't make that over generalization.

Gov't intervention into any market does nothing good for the economy. It's the same with education and housing and just about any market the gov't has touched. What has happened? Housing prices increased, created the bubble, and now people can't afford homes. Now that everyone is virtually homeless, housings are cheaper but people are poor. The rich buy up cheap houses, and rent at high prices. Education, no one can afford it without help unless you're rich. Again because of gov't intervention prices are astronomical, loans are required. Students have to pay interest on loans thereby making it even more expensive. The only people making money are those who already have it. That is not capitalism, my friend. That is gov't intervention.

A friend of mine in Australia plays on a college foodie team. He injured his foot and needed surgery. He was put on a wait list for 6 months before they would take care of it. He would have lost his scholarship, his place on the team, and had to deal with a ****** up foot for 6 months. If it weren't for his team pitching in 3,000 for a more immediate surgery he would have been screwed. If you think that kind of system is much better for US, then you truly do have *************** because you have no recollection of what healthcare has been like in US in our History.
User avatar #1292 to #1291 - oxan
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/22/2012) [-]
The free market doesn't work, and hasn't worked in the past. There's a reason there's regulation.

I don't know about the US' bailouts, as I'm Australian.

Healthcare shouldn't be a competitive market. It should be a human right, provided entirely for free.

Government intervention, when done correctly, does good. Let me use the Soviet Union, for example. Economic planning allowed the USSR to stop food rationing before even the United Kingdom after WW2. There was no unemployment in the USSR, yet it was rampant in the UK.

In fact, breadlines and famines post-Stalin were the direct result of liberal economic policies. The Soviet economy collapsed due to deregulation.

The Soviet Union trained 10,000s of female doctors and engineers at a time when this was not at all common anywhere in the capitalist world.

The Australian healthcare system is strained by a shortness of staff (not being helped in Queensland at all by the economic liberal government laying off medical staff). Simply nationalising some mining operations would be more than enough to improve the healthcare system.
#1304 to #1292 - anon id: fb495b0f
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/22/2012) [-]
There's a serious cultural boundary here. American Liberals are different in terms of political standing than Australian Liberals. You trying to argue your point is like Americans talking about soccer to you. It's great that you enjoy politics, but the perception is definitely askew. In America we like free choice. It's what we are founded on. Social healthcare robs us of our choice of a service that IS in fact marketable. Without competition in a market, as you conveniently pointed out, there is a lack of appeal to work in the specified environment. If everyone doing the work is paid the same, no one will work harder to be better at what they do. If even the playing field, you lose quality. I would rather have my choice to visit a doctor who has done wonders for people I know, than to be stuck with a gov't owned business that gives mediocre care.
User avatar #1313 to #1304 - oxan
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/23/2012) [-]
That's why I repeatedly noted that the liberal policies in question were 'economic liberal' policies, as opposed to 'socially liberal' policies.

In Australia, we have free choice. Social healthcare is providing an essential service to families that would otherwise be unable to afford the cost.

I don't recall pointing out that lack of a marketplace reduces appeal to work harder. I'm sure you think that in a socialist (or communist, as you're likely to believe) society, everyone gets paid the same, but they don't. Even in the USSR, the range of income for the 'normal' worker was pretty much the same as their Western counterparts. The USSR had many ways to encourage competition between public sectors. They even gave out medals for valour in labour, in addition to competitions between individual companies.

You do have the choice of visiting private sectors, if you wish. I never said that there should be no private sector. I suppose it could've been implied, but by saying it shouldn't be a competitive market, I meant that it's unethical to profit off of the suffering of people.

I should also point out that government owned businesses still compete against other government owned businesses. The difference between private and public companies is that the profits of public companies go back to the government, who then can use those funds to support other public businesses, improve workers wages, and so on.
User avatar #1248 to #1237 - tazze
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/22/2012) [-]
you put too much trust in humanity