(February 12, 2013 at 4:06 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: Homeless people with jobs manage to die. People who have access to reliable shelter are much less likely to randomly die

Even better when they lose their pathetic job as a result of being homeless.

Well if someone made 7.50 an hour, and worked 40 hours a week, they would be making about 1200 dollars a month. That is before taxes of course. Taxes hurt the poor more than anyone else because that extra 200 dollars means so much more to them. But assuming it's 1000 dollars after taxes, you aren't going to be homeless with that much money. If you struggle then you are bad with money or live somewhere too expensive. Except for the homeless, who overwhelmingly have mental or drug problems. People who have never lived or even traveled to the third world just don't have a good comparison.

(February 12, 2013 at 6:43 pm)Ryantology Wrote: 1. Minimum wage earners still pay income taxes in the US.

(I am not in disagreement with your post, just wanted to clarify this point).

Some (perhaps most?) don't. The situation is more complex in reality.

A single (no kids) filer working full time at the US Federal minimum wage will owe 10% tax on about $5300 in taxable income.

A single parent with one qualifying child who can file as head of household will pay no tax, but will instead get a check of about $4000 in the form of the Earned Income Credit and Child Tax Credit.

Quote: Who would enforce it?

Quote: Yeah we could get the government to do that or somethin

Ryan and frodo, libertarianism =/= anarcho capitalism, your sarcastic comments about (government) enforcing laws and contracts reveal a lack of understanding of the libertarian position(s).

Somebody asked how paying no tax (like GM, GE or something) could be considered a handout, it wouldn't necessarily be, but all the services then offered to you for free would be.

Quote: And how do you propose to end corporatism? How can the free market dissolve corporatism? How can consumers actually do anything about it, when so many rely on huge corporations for so many things?

What do you mean by corporatism?
It's not the mere existence of a big businesses, it's the government being in bed with corporations, and corporations writing the laws in their own favour (either giving themselves money, or restricting entrance to the market for small new competitors...). Which business have had a bailout? Or rely on government handouts? They would have gone (and wouldn't have been able to taken your money for themselves). It won't kill off well run corporations, but it will force them to compete fairly, no restricting their competitors, no writing laws forcing you to involuntarily buy their products, no forcibly taking money from Pete to pay for Paul's yacht. The idea that all corporations want to have to compete fairly in the free market is ludicrous. These corrupt, lumbering, rotton, behemoths cannot compete, the fact that they write laws restricting any possible competition shows how fearful they are of a free market.

(February 12, 2013 at 11:28 pm)Stue Denim Wrote:

Quote: Who would enforce it?

Quote: Yeah we could get the government to do that or somethin

Ryan and frodo, libertarianism =/= anarcho capitalism, your sarcastic comments about (government) enforcing laws and contracts reveal a lack of understanding of the libertarian position(s).

Somebody asked how paying no tax (like GM, GE or something) could be considered a handout, it wouldn't necessarily be, but all the services then offered to you for free would be.

That doesn't work. What stops corporations cutting costs beyond what is morally acceptable? A: Laws as enforced by government. You'd have to replace government with something similar. Profit is everything in capitalism, it doesn't care at all about fairness, and has to have that forced upon it. This had been clearly demonstrated to be fact with recent events.

Bay of Mexico & BP. BP cut corners on safety and jeopardized a massive ecosystem, and paid the price. Without a funded body to enquire into the wrongdoing and bring them to book, they (businesses) would operate as their financial gain would dictate.

Again, we're not talking about entirely eliminating government, I repeat: libertarianism =/= anarcho-capitalism. Please, this is bordering on straw manning (if intentional) or simple a gross misunderstanding of what libertarians are advocating for:

Quote: That doesn't work. What stops corporations cutting costs beyond what is morally acceptable? A: Laws as enforced by government. You'd have to replace government with something similar. Profit is everything in capitalism, it doesn't care at all about fairness, and has to have that forced upon it. This had been clearly demonstrated to be fact with recent events.

Bay of Mexico & BP. BP cut corners on safety and jeopardized a massive ecosystem, and paid the price. Without a funded body to enquire into the wrongdoing and bring them to book, they (businesses) would operate as their financial gain would dictate.

The rule under libertarianism: You fuck up or intentionally mess with somebody else's property (like say with a huge oil spill), you're liable. And none of this capped liability nonsense either (corporate welfare). You're property rights are still protected (yes, by guberment), contracts are still enforced (yes by guberment), fraud is illegal, aggression against other people or their property is illegal...

amendment to last post: no restricting competitors with laws/regulations*

Whatever libertarianism is in theory, my anecdotal experience with those who call themselves Libertarians (I love to troll Tea Party pages on facebook and that Tea Party Community site when I'm bored) express anarcho-capitalist sentiments. The guy who first introduced me to the libertarian ideology was definitly a-c.

If we're confusing the two, it's because there's a lot of crossover.

(February 12, 2013 at 6:59 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Well if someone made 7.50 an hour, and worked 40 hours a week, they would be making about 1200 dollars a month.

Moment of your time here... very few people who make minimum wage are allowed 40 hours a week. Hell, my girlfriend's only given some 15-25 in a normal week... and this is far from a rare experience among people I know. Walmart, in particular, will not let overtime happen if it has anything to say about it

Quote:That is before taxes of course. Taxes hurt the poor more than anyone else because that extra 200 dollars means so much more to them.

Indeed... it's brutal.

Quote:But assuming it's 1000 dollars after taxes, you aren't going to be homeless with that much money. If you struggle then you are bad with money or live somewhere too expensive. Except for the homeless, who overwhelmingly have mental or drug problems. People who have never lived or even traveled to the third world just don't have a good comparison.

Healthy food and water dig pretty hard... especially considering that poor people often have a family. 1000 dollars pretty much disappears when you have kids to support.

Many places in America are too expensive for 1000 dollars a month. The poor rely on social safety nets at that point... and relocating often costs money that such a person doesn't have. Not to forget their paycheck-absent weeks in a new job hunt...

There's a reason homelessness is correlated to 'mental problems' and drug (ab)use... sure, surviving any particular hell is possible. Living hell? That's miserable. Drugs can do a lot for you if you're so anesthetized to the world that it's all that's keeping you going... and the mind fractures far more easily under such duress as homelessness.

I was made homeless for eleven years by a divorce court taking my veterans compensation for eleven years for alimony. Shoot, epilepsy was even enshrined in my divorce document as the reason for the divorce.

I'll tell you, living homeless in the winter in Missouri and Illinois and Nebraska is no fun.

And there are a lot more people homeless that are not mentally ill than one would might think. While a larger percentage of the mentally ill are homeless than those who are not, they do not make up all the homeless.

I finally wrestled my disability back from my ex-wife (with the help of my current wife, who took in a homeless vet and married him - there's patriotism for you , and a good lawyer).

But not everyone can live in an inexpensive area of the USA, nor does one get all the benefits of living in expensive areas.

For example, we just bought a new car (a Smart). It cost $13,000, all of which was saved money. The house we bought here in Nebraska two years ago cost $18,000 (also saved money). Property taxes on such an inexpensive house (and that price is average here) amount to about three weeks wages at minimum wage.

If everyone moved here to avoid the high cost of such places as Manhattan (NY, not Kansas), there are no jobs and we would have no place to grow y'all's food.

The state has proposed repealing all corporate and individual income taxes, and financing everything by sales taxes (presumably that means our sales tax will go way up). Regardless of whether you are Warren Buffet in Omaha, or me on veterans disability in the Panhandle, our sales tax will be precisely the same on such things as milk and bread. (I suspect Mr Buffet will pay more sales tax on such things as caviar and good wines, because we don't buy those things).

Mr. Buffet has not come out yet with a position on the state sales tax proposal, though he has on Federal income taxes (the rich are already getting away with too much, and he is the richest). There is no question the income tax proposal is punitive for the poorest in the state, and those who are traditionally not taxed under the income tax (like disabled vet compensation - the state can get their hooks in my disability if they do it with a sales tax).

Food is real cheap here, but electricity, gas, travel, anything beyond which a town of 128 people can provide is horribly expensive.

It does have one advantage: there is no Wal*Mart within sixty miles.

(February 13, 2013 at 3:24 am)Stue Denim Wrote: The rule under libertarianism: You fuck up or intentionally mess with somebody else's property (like say with a huge oil spill), you're liable.

I've been told that under L the market controls itself. This is what I'm arguing against. I may have that wrong, but that's what I thought.

(February 13, 2013 at 3:48 am)Ryantology Wrote: Whatever libertarianism is in theory, my anecdotal experience with those who call themselves Libertarians (I love to troll Tea Party pages on facebook and that Tea Party Community site when I'm bored) express anarcho-capitalist sentiments. The guy who first introduced me to the libertarian ideology was definitly a-c.

If we're confusing the two, it's because there's a lot of crossover.

Tea Party people are largely conservative. Many of them may call themselves libertarian but they're just conservatives wanting to distance themselves from the Republican Party.