Henry George was a based 19th century economist who promoted an idea: replace income tax, and every other tax, with a land tax. The reasoning is that government funding must come from somewhere, hence taxation, and taxation is basically a punishment for whatever is being taxed. Income tax punishes you for working, tobacco tax punishes you for smoking, sales tax punishes you for buying. A land tax punishes people for not doing anything with the most valuable resource in the world.
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Merry Christmas and Happy Hearth's Warming Everyone and Everypony!
[YouTube] The True Gift of GiftingIf you want to see the latest posts from all boards in a convenient way please check out /overboard/
Archived thread
File (): F8E0A817A5000AE9E71544D561BCF5CB-49007.jpg
(47.9 KB, 480x800, Sassy-Cat.jpg)
Don't know who Henry George is (probably someone who had means to buy/keep lots of land, and wanted even more for himself), but wouldn't it be possible for the (((governments))) to then "use" the "land tax" to force people into those dearly-beloved 5-minute-cities and "pod-rooms" of theirs, which they're busily building for the mid/post-democide remainders of the world's human population? (Yes, it would.)
There is no good tax, when those doing the taxing are deranged soulless satanic murderers and whores. Besides that, just look at what horrors taxes and endless fake-money are funding nowadays. It's the taxes, interest-charges and belief in fake-money that makes it all real and into peoples' slavery-device, because they're not the ones who own or control it.
Wouldn't it be better to use a form of currency not created or controlled by the synagogue-of-satan (such as Monero, which can't be controlled or taxed by anyone)? (Yes, it would. BTW - Research the Feather Wallet, TOR and an anonymous/semi-anonymous method of purchasing Monero without KYC! Do it this weekend and start informing yourself, but beware of scammers/shills/fakers.)
Of course, the new super-green-ethical-inclusive-empowering-nonbinary-666-babylon-coin by the antichrist's world government is long-ready for being imposed once the fake fiat-money system implodes, by design. We're already seeing new face-scanning "EFTPOS" card readers everywhere, and especially at self-service checkouts.
The more power one gives to satan and his synagogue-members, the more they'll gleefully abuse it to carry out their bloodthirsty plans. Wouldn't it be better to apply anti-war-crime/genocide types of laws to those who are currently committing them? Those who created/allowed/profited-from/enforced the deathshots for example might be a good place to start with, and then moving on to those creating/allowing/profiting-from/enforcing the climate-communism/deathcult.
Also, I'd say there are a few (not just worldly) resources more valuable than just land, and absolutely none of them should be controlled by satan-and-co., yet they increasingly are and the resource-theft is accelerating.
Are you a genuine poster or just testing/tweaking the analytics for working out the best way of forcing people into communism and death-pods?
(I haven't checked yet, but has this kind of post been making the rounds on other image boards?)
There is no good tax, when those doing the taxing are deranged soulless satanic murderers and whores. Besides that, just look at what horrors taxes and endless fake-money are funding nowadays. It's the taxes, interest-charges and belief in fake-money that makes it all real and into peoples' slavery-device, because they're not the ones who own or control it.
Wouldn't it be better to use a form of currency not created or controlled by the synagogue-of-satan (such as Monero, which can't be controlled or taxed by anyone)? (Yes, it would. BTW - Research the Feather Wallet, TOR and an anonymous/semi-anonymous method of purchasing Monero without KYC! Do it this weekend and start informing yourself, but beware of scammers/shills/fakers.)
Of course, the new super-green-ethical-inclusive-empowering-nonbinary-666-babylon-coin by the antichrist's world government is long-ready for being imposed once the fake fiat-money system implodes, by design. We're already seeing new face-scanning "EFTPOS" card readers everywhere, and especially at self-service checkouts.
The more power one gives to satan and his synagogue-members, the more they'll gleefully abuse it to carry out their bloodthirsty plans. Wouldn't it be better to apply anti-war-crime/genocide types of laws to those who are currently committing them? Those who created/allowed/profited-from/enforced the deathshots for example might be a good place to start with, and then moving on to those creating/allowing/profiting-from/enforcing the climate-communism/deathcult.
Also, I'd say there are a few (not just worldly) resources more valuable than just land, and absolutely none of them should be controlled by satan-and-co., yet they increasingly are and the resource-theft is accelerating.
Are you a genuine poster or just testing/tweaking the analytics for working out the best way of forcing people into communism and death-pods?
(I haven't checked yet, but has this kind of post been making the rounds on other image boards?)
File (): 0982BFF41FC53DFA3357931890DD64D2-254529.png
(248.6 KB, 972x586, Creepy.png)
>>369791
>probably someone who had means to buy/keep lots of land, and wanted even more for himself
Notatall. The land tax would have the opposite effect. Its not a tax on the sale of land, but rather a tax on the possession of land. Please work on your reading comprehension. Before responding to a post, try to read the entire thing, and pay attention to each word.
>wouldn't it be possible for the (((governments))) to then "use" the "land tax" to force people into those dearly-beloved 5-minute-cities and "pod-rooms" of theirs, which they're busily building for the mid/post-democide remainders of the world's human population?
Quite the opposite you dumb nigger, it would drive down the price of land as there would be far less incentive or hoard land. Everyone who had land would be doing something with it, like farming, or living on the land. A land tax would promote individuals owning land AND UTILIZING IT rather than companies owning land and UNDERUTILIZING IT.
>such as Monero, which can't be controlled or taxed by anyone
I'm blown away by your level of retardation. How does someone like you even manage to turn on a computer?
>I haven't checked yet, but has this kind of post been making the rounds on other image boards?
Obvious lie detected. You saw my post on frenschan. But yeah, I posted this on frenschan and mlpol.
>probably someone who had means to buy/keep lots of land, and wanted even more for himself
Notatall. The land tax would have the opposite effect. Its not a tax on the sale of land, but rather a tax on the possession of land. Please work on your reading comprehension. Before responding to a post, try to read the entire thing, and pay attention to each word.
>wouldn't it be possible for the (((governments))) to then "use" the "land tax" to force people into those dearly-beloved 5-minute-cities and "pod-rooms" of theirs, which they're busily building for the mid/post-democide remainders of the world's human population?
Quite the opposite you dumb nigger, it would drive down the price of land as there would be far less incentive or hoard land. Everyone who had land would be doing something with it, like farming, or living on the land. A land tax would promote individuals owning land AND UTILIZING IT rather than companies owning land and UNDERUTILIZING IT.
>such as Monero, which can't be controlled or taxed by anyone
I'm blown away by your level of retardation. How does someone like you even manage to turn on a computer?
>I haven't checked yet, but has this kind of post been making the rounds on other image boards?
Obvious lie detected. You saw my post on frenschan. But yeah, I posted this on frenschan and mlpol.
>>369792
>>369788
>replace one kind of tax with another kind of tax
>nothing changes
suprised.jpg
So the only tax is the land.
Guess who'll pay.
You'll find that nothing changes.
>but its totally idealized taxation though
Incredible, still nothing changes.
The local collections would be collecting larger amounts, but essentially the same proportional money would be exchanged.
Let's look at this from another lens
>ESG Green deal land initiative evaluator
>land isn't meeting diversity and green deal quotas
>better make them pay
>taxes increase
So nice try hoping that they'll totally play fair in your imagined simulation. But try to consider how easy it is to abuse.
>But they'll totally keep to the spirit of the tax
You do know how money flows right?
Instead of you paying both directly and indirectly, it's all indirectly.
The essence of what Taxes is, isn't punishment, it's getting the pound of flesh one way or another.
Your so called land possession tax changes nothing about them getting their pound of flesh.
So knock it off thinking that if taxes get different coats of paint and different middlemen everything changes fundamentally.
It's theoretically a good idea, because all those theoretical taxes would be for the highest good ideals. Where everybody plays nice.
Don't confuse different paint coats with unrealistic theoretical situations.
>>369788
>replace one kind of tax with another kind of tax
>nothing changes
suprised.jpg
So the only tax is the land.
Guess who'll pay.
You'll find that nothing changes.
>but its totally idealized taxation though
Incredible, still nothing changes.
The local collections would be collecting larger amounts, but essentially the same proportional money would be exchanged.
Let's look at this from another lens
>ESG Green deal land initiative evaluator
>land isn't meeting diversity and green deal quotas
>better make them pay
>taxes increase
So nice try hoping that they'll totally play fair in your imagined simulation. But try to consider how easy it is to abuse.
>But they'll totally keep to the spirit of the tax
You do know how money flows right?
Instead of you paying both directly and indirectly, it's all indirectly.
The essence of what Taxes is, isn't punishment, it's getting the pound of flesh one way or another.
Your so called land possession tax changes nothing about them getting their pound of flesh.
So knock it off thinking that if taxes get different coats of paint and different middlemen everything changes fundamentally.
It's theoretically a good idea, because all those theoretical taxes would be for the highest good ideals. Where everybody plays nice.
Don't confuse different paint coats with unrealistic theoretical situations.
>>369792
Righto then, you've shown your nature and ignored the parts of my post that have already refuted/nullified your response. It doesn't matter who you are, your kind all talk the same anyway.
---
For those wondering regardless: Beware anyone who promises not to abuse the power that you cede to them (in return for some perceived BS/short-term benefit). They will promise you utopia, and then they'll murder you too.
The world is being forced into a satanic and murderous one-world-government/coin/tax/army/truth/gulag system, and (((guess who))) will control it all. Avoid their poisons and discover their antidotes, at all costs.
Righto then, you've shown your nature and ignored the parts of my post that have already refuted/nullified your response. It doesn't matter who you are, your kind all talk the same anyway.
---
For those wondering regardless: Beware anyone who promises not to abuse the power that you cede to them (in return for some perceived BS/short-term benefit). They will promise you utopia, and then they'll murder you too.
The world is being forced into a satanic and murderous one-world-government/coin/tax/army/truth/gulag system, and (((guess who))) will control it all. Avoid their poisons and discover their antidotes, at all costs.
>>369791
>>369794
I'm not super familiar with Georgism either, but I looked it up and it seems reasonable. If I'm understanding it correctly, the idea is that you have a land tax that replaces all other forms of taxation. Land would be taxed on its value as real estate, so it would disincentivize buying up large swaths of land and doing nothing with it, the way that BlackRock and other investment groups are currently doing. It would also encourage people who do own a lot of land to put it to some kind of productive use, so that it generates income to offset the taxes they would be paying for owning it.
The downside I can see is that it might discourage homeownership for ordinary people, since you'd be paying tax on the assessed value of land you own, which in some desirable areas could be quite high. However, this seems like kind of a weak argument, since homeowners already have to pay these sorts of taxes on top of all the other taxes they pay. In a situation where land is the only thing you have to pay taxes on, ie you keep 100% of your income and don't have to pay taxes on transactions, inheritances, and so forth, writing a small check to the government once a year for property tax would be vastly preferable to the convoluted ass-rape that the tax system is at present.
Also, if I'm understanding George's proposal correctly, it sounds like the taxation is based on the value of the land itself, excluding improvements, so you'd be paying taxes on the value of the lot, not the value of the lot + the house + all the other assessment nonsense that gets factored into current property taxes. So again, this system would be a vast improvement over the present tax system. I'm not really fluent enough in economics to understand the nuts and bolts of why this system is better than some of the other alternative tax systems that have been proposed, but again, this sounds reasonable enough.
---
I don't want to derail the thread too much with personal banter, but I think your attacks on OP are unwarranted. There's nothing in any of OP's posts that suggest he's a shill or is arguing in bad faith.
Also:
>Wouldn't it be better to use a form of currency not created or controlled by the synagogue-of-satan (such as Monero, which can't be controlled or taxed by anyone)?
If you're trying to buy drugs or child slaves on the dark web, Monero probably makes sense enough, but it's not even remotely practical for day to day transactions. Also, this has nothing to do with the pros and cons of land taxes and is not relevant to the conversation. Actually, the same can be said about all the other random stuff you bring up; Satan and the vaccines and EFTPOS cards whatever the hell those are exactly and whatever other random stuff you brought up.
>Righto then, you've shown your nature and ignored the parts of my post that have already refuted/nullified your response.
You haven't really refuted or nullified anything that I can see. Also, I'd again like to point out that your attacks on OP's motives are pretty baseless; OP is simply making an argument for an alternative tax system. Granted, it would be pretty difficult to implement something like this so I'm assuming the discussion is mostly theoretical at this point, but again; OP does not seem to be arguing in bad faith, whereas you are just spouting unrelated gibberish about Satan and cryptocurrency. If anyone is failing to address the relevant parts of anyone's posts here, it's you.
>For those wondering regardless: Beware anyone who promises not to abuse the power that you cede to them (in return for some perceived BS/short-term benefit). They will promise you utopia, and then they'll murder you too.
>The world is being forced into a satanic and murderous one-world-government/coin/tax/army/truth/gulag system, and (((guess who))) will control it all. Avoid their poisons and discover their antidotes, at all costs.
Vaguely ominous blanket statements like this, presented without any apparent context, make me think that you probably spend far too much time online. You should go outside and walk around a little; it's good for you.
In any event, if you could make an effort to keep your posts a little more legible and on topic, I think we'd all appreciate it. Thanks.
>>369794
I'm not super familiar with Georgism either, but I looked it up and it seems reasonable. If I'm understanding it correctly, the idea is that you have a land tax that replaces all other forms of taxation. Land would be taxed on its value as real estate, so it would disincentivize buying up large swaths of land and doing nothing with it, the way that BlackRock and other investment groups are currently doing. It would also encourage people who do own a lot of land to put it to some kind of productive use, so that it generates income to offset the taxes they would be paying for owning it.
The downside I can see is that it might discourage homeownership for ordinary people, since you'd be paying tax on the assessed value of land you own, which in some desirable areas could be quite high. However, this seems like kind of a weak argument, since homeowners already have to pay these sorts of taxes on top of all the other taxes they pay. In a situation where land is the only thing you have to pay taxes on, ie you keep 100% of your income and don't have to pay taxes on transactions, inheritances, and so forth, writing a small check to the government once a year for property tax would be vastly preferable to the convoluted ass-rape that the tax system is at present.
Also, if I'm understanding George's proposal correctly, it sounds like the taxation is based on the value of the land itself, excluding improvements, so you'd be paying taxes on the value of the lot, not the value of the lot + the house + all the other assessment nonsense that gets factored into current property taxes. So again, this system would be a vast improvement over the present tax system. I'm not really fluent enough in economics to understand the nuts and bolts of why this system is better than some of the other alternative tax systems that have been proposed, but again, this sounds reasonable enough.
---
I don't want to derail the thread too much with personal banter, but I think your attacks on OP are unwarranted. There's nothing in any of OP's posts that suggest he's a shill or is arguing in bad faith.
Also:
>Wouldn't it be better to use a form of currency not created or controlled by the synagogue-of-satan (such as Monero, which can't be controlled or taxed by anyone)?
If you're trying to buy drugs or child slaves on the dark web, Monero probably makes sense enough, but it's not even remotely practical for day to day transactions. Also, this has nothing to do with the pros and cons of land taxes and is not relevant to the conversation. Actually, the same can be said about all the other random stuff you bring up; Satan and the vaccines and EFTPOS cards whatever the hell those are exactly and whatever other random stuff you brought up.
>Righto then, you've shown your nature and ignored the parts of my post that have already refuted/nullified your response.
You haven't really refuted or nullified anything that I can see. Also, I'd again like to point out that your attacks on OP's motives are pretty baseless; OP is simply making an argument for an alternative tax system. Granted, it would be pretty difficult to implement something like this so I'm assuming the discussion is mostly theoretical at this point, but again; OP does not seem to be arguing in bad faith, whereas you are just spouting unrelated gibberish about Satan and cryptocurrency. If anyone is failing to address the relevant parts of anyone's posts here, it's you.
>For those wondering regardless: Beware anyone who promises not to abuse the power that you cede to them (in return for some perceived BS/short-term benefit). They will promise you utopia, and then they'll murder you too.
>The world is being forced into a satanic and murderous one-world-government/coin/tax/army/truth/gulag system, and (((guess who))) will control it all. Avoid their poisons and discover their antidotes, at all costs.
Vaguely ominous blanket statements like this, presented without any apparent context, make me think that you probably spend far too much time online. You should go outside and walk around a little; it's good for you.
In any event, if you could make an effort to keep your posts a little more legible and on topic, I think we'd all appreciate it. Thanks.
>>369788
>A land tax punishes people for not doing anything with the most valuable resource in the world.
This seems fair from one perspective, but from another it can be seen as punishing people for living humble lives on small family farms that produce very little income. It may force those small family farmers to sell their land to industrial agriculture or real estate firms (like Blackrock) if a bad year causes their high-value land to only produce meager crops, as a property tax would be based on the value of the land and not the income of the people.
I come from Florida. In Florida, we have no income tax, but we have pretty high property taxes (and gas taxes, and sales taxes; all of which hurt poor people more) and a housing market where land is getting increasingly scarce as population increases. A lot of small family farmers were forced to sell their land when the citrus greening hurt agriculture in the state, not because their trees didn't produce enough to survive but because property taxes on top of expenses forced them into the red. Now descendants of the family farmers who developed this state wander the country as impoverished rentoids, which isn't fair at all, imo.
>Income tax punishes you for working
I disagree, tbh. It doesn't so much as punish you for working as it does take a portion of what you earned (which hurts, to be fair); that's not quite the same because if you didn't work at all you would still have less than if you were taxed, so working still earns you more money. So long as the income tax isn't unfairly levied to squeeze the middle class, it shouldn't disincentivize people from working, because tax or no tax most people want to better their conditions in life.
Taxation is an ugly thing, and no matter how it's applied it will be unfair to someone. Consider who is impacted the most by a tax policy and consider if that's good for society.
I, personally, think progressive income-based taxes aren't all that bad of an idea, since those with the means to pay will pay slightly more (it shouldn't be directed at the middle class, but instead the wealthiest of wealthy), and those without the means to pay would be able to save up some money to raise capital to and have some opportunity their lives.
I am a proponent of property taxes on the upper brackets in the event that an individual or corporation holds massive stretches of property and doesn't do anything with it except rent it out. The trend of massive real estate firms hoarding tens of thousands of houses out of the market and renting them out of profit instead of issuing mortgages needs to stop.
>A land tax punishes people for not doing anything with the most valuable resource in the world.
This seems fair from one perspective, but from another it can be seen as punishing people for living humble lives on small family farms that produce very little income. It may force those small family farmers to sell their land to industrial agriculture or real estate firms (like Blackrock) if a bad year causes their high-value land to only produce meager crops, as a property tax would be based on the value of the land and not the income of the people.
I come from Florida. In Florida, we have no income tax, but we have pretty high property taxes (and gas taxes, and sales taxes; all of which hurt poor people more) and a housing market where land is getting increasingly scarce as population increases. A lot of small family farmers were forced to sell their land when the citrus greening hurt agriculture in the state, not because their trees didn't produce enough to survive but because property taxes on top of expenses forced them into the red. Now descendants of the family farmers who developed this state wander the country as impoverished rentoids, which isn't fair at all, imo.
>Income tax punishes you for working
I disagree, tbh. It doesn't so much as punish you for working as it does take a portion of what you earned (which hurts, to be fair); that's not quite the same because if you didn't work at all you would still have less than if you were taxed, so working still earns you more money. So long as the income tax isn't unfairly levied to squeeze the middle class, it shouldn't disincentivize people from working, because tax or no tax most people want to better their conditions in life.
Taxation is an ugly thing, and no matter how it's applied it will be unfair to someone. Consider who is impacted the most by a tax policy and consider if that's good for society.
I, personally, think progressive income-based taxes aren't all that bad of an idea, since those with the means to pay will pay slightly more (it shouldn't be directed at the middle class, but instead the wealthiest of wealthy), and those without the means to pay would be able to save up some money to raise capital to and have some opportunity their lives.
I am a proponent of property taxes on the upper brackets in the event that an individual or corporation holds massive stretches of property and doesn't do anything with it except rent it out. The trend of massive real estate firms hoarding tens of thousands of houses out of the market and renting them out of profit instead of issuing mortgages needs to stop.
File (): 55732B72ADB8F754DC877ED79FD255DA-167583.jpg
(163.7 KB, 1692x1762, Colts_These_Days.jpg)
Arguing over which taxation system is better is something that slaves do, none of whom would ever address or accept that their masters are monsters.
It's something that happens on Reddit and everywhere else where people/stallions/animals have "given up" their autonomy/mind/spirit and save their indignation and anger for anyone (an "other"/outsider) who points out they are slaves, or that their masters are monsters, rather than them investing any energy into freeing themselves or even realising that they're not free.
Anyone with (and brave enough to have) even the faintest idea of how "our" current law/money/big-anything system works will realise that discussions like this are complete bullshit, and will only further delude people/stallions into believing they have any real and effective choice when choosing and supporting a (their own) pre-prepared snare.
You can circlejerk each other all you like and smugly turn up your noses at those "others", and remain fondling each other in Plato's Cave.
Both death and taxes are NOT certainties (it's a lie that they are, which slaves repeat amongst themselves), if you know who the real master is and follow Him, and avoid Caesar's systems as much as the Bible/New Testament allows and stay within its rules instead. That's why I went off on a few tangents, but also have to admit that threads like these bore me to death, after seeing them and even reading through them for over 2 decades now - it's all the same bullshit, rehashed and repeated and nothing substantial ever changes (for the better). So much time and energy wasted. My muzzle is already grey and saggy, the back aches every day and my balls have shriveled.
Maybe you're just younger soypones, and still believe this "but that wasn't REAL socialism/communism/etc." nonsense is new or real. There are even better alternatives, okay? Try not to waste 20 years finding that out.
It's something that happens on Reddit and everywhere else where people/stallions/animals have "given up" their autonomy/mind/spirit and save their indignation and anger for anyone (an "other"/outsider) who points out they are slaves, or that their masters are monsters, rather than them investing any energy into freeing themselves or even realising that they're not free.
Anyone with (and brave enough to have) even the faintest idea of how "our" current law/money/big-anything system works will realise that discussions like this are complete bullshit, and will only further delude people/stallions into believing they have any real and effective choice when choosing and supporting a (their own) pre-prepared snare.
You can circlejerk each other all you like and smugly turn up your noses at those "others", and remain fondling each other in Plato's Cave.
Both death and taxes are NOT certainties (it's a lie that they are, which slaves repeat amongst themselves), if you know who the real master is and follow Him, and avoid Caesar's systems as much as the Bible/New Testament allows and stay within its rules instead. That's why I went off on a few tangents, but also have to admit that threads like these bore me to death, after seeing them and even reading through them for over 2 decades now - it's all the same bullshit, rehashed and repeated and nothing substantial ever changes (for the better). So much time and energy wasted. My muzzle is already grey and saggy, the back aches every day and my balls have shriveled.
Maybe you're just younger soypones, and still believe this "but that wasn't REAL socialism/communism/etc." nonsense is new or real. There are even better alternatives, okay? Try not to waste 20 years finding that out.
>>369834
>rather than them investing any energy into freeing themselves or even realising that they're not free.
And once we're free, how should we gather funds to ensure we remain free. A government without funding will be taken over by one with funding. People should get public education till they're atleast 13 and able to teach themself. Do you want illiterate masses who only know what their parents have taught them?
>"but that wasn't REAL socialism/communism/etc."
Taxation isn't socialism.
>There are even better alternatives, okay?
Yes, and a small Land Tax is a better alternative.
>rather than them investing any energy into freeing themselves or even realising that they're not free.
And once we're free, how should we gather funds to ensure we remain free. A government without funding will be taken over by one with funding. People should get public education till they're atleast 13 and able to teach themself. Do you want illiterate masses who only know what their parents have taught them?
>"but that wasn't REAL socialism/communism/etc."
Taxation isn't socialism.
>There are even better alternatives, okay?
Yes, and a small Land Tax is a better alternative.
>>369839
>And once we're free, how should we gather funds to ensure we remain free.
Funds are a means to an end. A proxy trade of belief and work time and product and resources.
How all those and 'funds' are accrued and sent out by whom and that logistics of increasing those is to be determined.
At the start labour, force and stuffs would be in highest demand.
Genuine education can start before anything happens.
I'd rather not have busybodies arbitrarily deciding how much of a tax they want me to give.
What it's based on matters very little, it's who's behind it.
We can theorize what tax is based on and which metrics land evaluations can be judged by.
The question is simply this.
>How do people ensure freedom?
The first part is that it's measured by trust in somebody else.
(((They))) say it's by black mail, threats, lies, trickery and death.
(((Communism))) says just trust the true communisms.
Capitalism says you can trust that they desire something.
Feudalism says you can trust them because of honor or pedigree.
Tribalism says you can trust them because of shared genetics.
Ect.
Friends say you can trust them because they trust you.
The second part is how is freedom ensured and against what.
Perhaps the decent news is now at this point in time we know even more vectors of which to defend against.
>government with funding always beats a government without funding.
Mhmm, that's not true you know.
>People should get public education
Okay then make a public curriculum before shit hits the fan.
>And once we're free, how should we gather funds to ensure we remain free.
Funds are a means to an end. A proxy trade of belief and work time and product and resources.
How all those and 'funds' are accrued and sent out by whom and that logistics of increasing those is to be determined.
At the start labour, force and stuffs would be in highest demand.
Genuine education can start before anything happens.
I'd rather not have busybodies arbitrarily deciding how much of a tax they want me to give.
What it's based on matters very little, it's who's behind it.
We can theorize what tax is based on and which metrics land evaluations can be judged by.
The question is simply this.
>How do people ensure freedom?
The first part is that it's measured by trust in somebody else.
(((They))) say it's by black mail, threats, lies, trickery and death.
(((Communism))) says just trust the true communisms.
Capitalism says you can trust that they desire something.
Feudalism says you can trust them because of honor or pedigree.
Tribalism says you can trust them because of shared genetics.
Ect.
Friends say you can trust them because they trust you.
The second part is how is freedom ensured and against what.
Perhaps the decent news is now at this point in time we know even more vectors of which to defend against.
>government with funding always beats a government without funding.
Mhmm, that's not true you know.
>People should get public education
Okay then make a public curriculum before shit hits the fan.
File (): 97B040D3D4B887D303E3DF75DECF5D70-136681.jpg
(133.5 KB, 700x871, tax1.jpg)
File (): 64299829C316B9FB0FEC7CFBEBEA7427-614376.png
(600.0 KB, 771x651, tax3.png)
File (): 73EEE51F6822C1585C16CDD1B211834B-194900.png
(190.3 KB, 400x386, tax4.png)
File (): CE6A176601F9B0BCF82EFB1B65A84AC6-107199.jpg
(104.7 KB, 680x673, tax5.jpg)
>>369865
All taxation is extortion, but any government that cares about existing at all has to collect taxes.
The prompt at hand implies that the speaker wants a state to exist in some capacity. The question is what would be a """fair""" and productive way to collect those taxes. I'm sure you agree that some methods are worse than others.
There's a case to be made for abolishing the state entirely, but that's an argument for another thread.
All taxation is extortion, but any government that cares about existing at all has to collect taxes.
The prompt at hand implies that the speaker wants a state to exist in some capacity. The question is what would be a """fair""" and productive way to collect those taxes. I'm sure you agree that some methods are worse than others.
There's a case to be made for abolishing the state entirely, but that's an argument for another thread.
What the fuck, I glance at this thread and I tab back to youtube and saw a video discussing this very topic, despite being in incognito and not even watching any tax related shit. I'm kinda scared now.
File (): B93AC8C3B8E70E2B20271C96FAEAF3E8-67045.jpg
(65.5 KB, 1052x1102, 3129696_1-1.jpg)
>>369788
All taxes are anti-freedom of choice.
All tariffs are anti-freedom to trade.
All fines are anti-right of choice.
All policies are utilized as anti-discussion, authoritarian measures which seek to impose unnecessary and anti-natural rights upon the individual/group.
There are no "good" taxes. The "least bad way" is still an unnecessary, illegitimately harmful way.
All taxes are anti-freedom of choice.
All tariffs are anti-freedom to trade.
All fines are anti-right of choice.
All policies are utilized as anti-discussion, authoritarian measures which seek to impose unnecessary and anti-natural rights upon the individual/group.
There are no "good" taxes. The "least bad way" is still an unnecessary, illegitimately harmful way.
19 replies |
10 files |
12 UUIDs |
Archived