Finally I will be free to purchase bad haircuts, tattoos which are amorphous black blobs, and belly shirts without the undue hardship of taxation. I can't wait to bring this up at my next GLOW (Gorgeous Libertarians Of Wrestling) meeting.
"I'm givin' away free money, and where is the Batman? He's at home washing his tights!" - The Joker, 1989
ps this is my_robotic_limb for some reason i am banned from posting replies in your livejournal!!!
what makes you think that people doubling their economic power will make them wiser/healthier/more effective consumers? if you can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps with 1 dollar, why should you be able to with 2? plenty of relatively well-off people still buy the cheapest products, and plenty of thoroughly rich people still buy from irresponsible businesses because of quality or prestige etc.
what makes you think that people doubling their economic power will make them wiser/healthier/more effective consumers?
First off, it's a well known fact that, at the very least, when it comes to food, you get more bang for your buck in terms of calories in the junk food isle (hence Colbert's skit where he dips Doritto's into that puffy marshmellow crap) and there have also been a number of studies done on this in relation to the purchasing power of individuals on food stamp programs. Many people tend to settle for what they can get due to budgeting though they would prefer to eat far healthier than they can now.
if you can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps with 1 dollar, why should you be able to with 2?It's called a process. It's not immediate. The more money people have the more they will likely spend in general. The more they spend the more it influences the economy. The more it influences the economy the more industry needs to produce. The more industry needs to produce, the more people they need to hire. The more
( ... )
you get more bang for your buck in the junkfood aisle, but junkfood ain't cheap. the bang is convenience and taste, not caloric. look at the people who frequent all-you-can-eat mall buffets. i've just gotten back from a week with my friend's family, who are living above their means as comfortably middle-class. she was perfectly willing to cook healthy and tasty food, do all the legwork, they only had to pay for groceries. but they preferred to spend more and live greasily off of wendys and taco bell.
The more money people have the more they will likely spend in general. The more they spend the more it influences the economy. The more it influences the economy the more industry needs to produce...it's not as if the IRS collects all our money and dumps it in a river. if the govt spends my money on bomber jets or i spend it myself on guitar strings, the economy will chug along roughly equally. different industries will be stimulated, but the total effect will be the same because the amount of money will be the same (tho we are both
( ... )
you get more bang for your buck in the junkfood aisle, but junkfood ain't cheap. the bang is convenience and taste, not caloric.
Take two apples, compare them to one large kitkat bar and come back to say that.
it's not as if the IRS collects all our money and dumps it in a river.
That's what you think :-p In any case: They might as well. A large portion of our tax dollars go to a) international aid (which rarely goes where it's supposed to and ends up stuffing the coffers of corrupt overseas politicians, something like 10% gets where it is intended to go). Or an over-bloated military and intelligence budget (we had all the information and resources to protect ourself from 9/11, so what do we do when they fuck up and don't act on it? THey go and create a wasteful bureaucracy. Seriously, private markets will always be more efficient then governments.)
but the total effect will be the same because the amount of money will be the sameDoubtful since most of the money given to make jet bombers goes into the pockets of rich folks
( ... )
That article is deeply misleading. The defendant is simply lying about what happened in the case, the court didn't buy his argument that no law requires payment of an income tax. There isn't a straight faced argument that Congress hasn't levied an income tax, and his particular argument (which he details elsewhere) is a traditional favorite which has failed every one of the many times it has been argued. Failed, I feel I should add, because it is excessively stupid.
What actually happened here is he was acquitted by the jury, and since the jury deliberations are secret, who knows why. The most likely reason though is that they believed him when he said that *he* knew of no law that obliged him to pay his income tax. Criminal tax evasion requires intent, not paying your taxes because you're crazy isn't criminal.
The article makes out that the court has validated the tinfoil hat tax law lunacy of the defendant, which just isn't the case. He still has to pay his taxes, he just doesn't go to jail as well.
Comments 11
"I'm givin' away free money, and where is the Batman? He's at home washing his tights!" - The Joker, 1989
ps this is my_robotic_limb for some reason i am banned from posting replies in your livejournal!!!
pps green titty
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
"fuck you i won't do what you tell me!" -rage against the machine
Reply
Reply
Reply
First off, it's a well known fact that, at the very least, when it comes to food, you get more bang for your buck in terms of calories in the junk food isle (hence Colbert's skit where he dips Doritto's into that puffy marshmellow crap) and there have also been a number of studies done on this in relation to the purchasing power of individuals on food stamp programs. Many people tend to settle for what they can get due to budgeting though they would prefer to eat far healthier than they can now.
if you can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps with 1 dollar, why should you be able to with 2?It's called a process. It's not immediate. The more money people have the more they will likely spend in general. The more they spend the more it influences the economy. The more it influences the economy the more industry needs to produce. The more industry needs to produce, the more people they need to hire. The more ( ... )
Reply
The more money people have the more they will likely spend in general. The more they spend the more it influences the economy. The more it influences the economy the more industry needs to produce...it's not as if the IRS collects all our money and dumps it in a river. if the govt spends my money on bomber jets or i spend it myself on guitar strings, the economy will chug along roughly equally. different industries will be stimulated, but the total effect will be the same because the amount of money will be the same (tho we are both ( ... )
Reply
Take two apples, compare them to one large kitkat bar and come back to say that.
it's not as if the IRS collects all our money and dumps it in a river.
That's what you think :-p In any case: They might as well. A large portion of our tax dollars go to a) international aid (which rarely goes where it's supposed to and ends up stuffing the coffers of corrupt overseas politicians, something like 10% gets where it is intended to go). Or an over-bloated military and intelligence budget (we had all the information and resources to protect ourself from 9/11, so what do we do when they fuck up and don't act on it? THey go and create a wasteful bureaucracy. Seriously, private markets will always be more efficient then governments.)
but the total effect will be the same because the amount of money will be the sameDoubtful since most of the money given to make jet bombers goes into the pockets of rich folks ( ... )
Reply
The defendant is simply lying about what happened in the case, the court didn't buy his argument that no law requires payment of an income tax. There isn't a straight faced argument that Congress hasn't levied an income tax, and his particular argument (which he details elsewhere) is a traditional favorite which has failed every one of the many times it has been argued. Failed, I feel I should add, because it is excessively stupid.
What actually happened here is he was acquitted by the jury, and since the jury deliberations are secret, who knows why. The most likely reason though is that they believed him when he said that *he* knew of no law that obliged him to pay his income tax. Criminal tax evasion requires intent, not paying your taxes because you're crazy isn't criminal.
The article makes out that the court has validated the tinfoil hat tax law lunacy of the defendant, which just isn't the case. He still has to pay his taxes, he just doesn't go to jail as well.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment