The Rich Benefit the Most from Socialism

[Darth]

...collective bargaining. Yes, there are problems in how they are implemented, but am not convinced that we should be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Who said anything about throwing out the baby with the bathwater, collective bargaining is still welcome under libertarianism, the problem with the US state and federal laws as I understand them is that they either mandate or prohibit certain forms, when really it should be between the negotiating parties, whatever they contract with each other to do, that's what it is. Right to work laws as they currently stand, although maybe preferred as the lesser or two evils by some, are not the libertarian solution. here's a cato link detailing some libertarian critisisms of the current situation from quite a few libertarians (and no Min, I don't care about how much you hate those Koch suckers) http://www.cato.org/blog/libertarians-right-work-laws. If anything libertarians are proposing changing how it's implemented/regulated and not throwing out the baby, as you suggest.

Welfare is not intended to make the poor not poor. It is intended to prevent the poor from starving and dying of exposure. It is a last resort, dude.

It's the war on poverty, intended to end poverty (if you believe the leftist politicians' rhetoric that is ), not the war on starvation.

It's more than food+shelter (though you can argue that that's unintended still). I've been eligible for it in Aus (yah for being a student) whilst neither starving, being short of shelter, or even in a situation where I had to work, but still I was eligible for $9,000 Aus a year. Also how high is it? is it higher than a minimum wage job in all states? Can you still argue it's a last resort if it's going to give people more money than a min wage job (even higher cause there's no having to travel)?

Wrong. They were instated by Franklin Fucking Delano Roosevelt with broad support of the Congress AND Senate AND the American people. Involuntarily my fucking ass, you half-baked retard.

That's the nature of democracy, the decision and consequences are involuntary for up to 50% of the population. That's before we even get into the rigged two party systems where you have to vote for the lesser of two evils and so on (although Koolay as an An-Cap might have an interesting argument I've seen regarding consent and democracy). Point is, it's involuntary for some, unless you think everybody consented to the Iraq war and the NSA nonsense.

top rate was reduced from 83% to 60% and the basic rate from 33% to 30%. (Creed's note: Rich get a 23% tax drop, everyone else gets a 3% tax drop. That's totally fair, right?) The basic rate was also cut for three successive budgets - to 29% in the 1986 budget, 27% in 1987 and to 25% in 1988. (Creed's note: OK that seems a bit more fair, I mean it's a bit closer to-)The top rate of income tax was cut to 40% in the 1988 budget.The investment income surcharge was abolished in 1985.

Yes it's total fair for the rich, if they were as you say paying 80% tax, to get a 23% cut while other people get 3%. You can't raise taxes to 80%, and then throw a fit when right leaning politicians reduce that to a mere 60% (well you can, you're free to do so, but you look ridiculous). It was fucking 80%, they're undoing leftist nut jobbery at that point, not giving the rich a blowjob. What would happen if the right followed your advice? Starting with a flat tax of 30% if we assume the left brings in tax hikes on the rich and that the two sides are constantly swapping in terms of who has control:
The left would get in, maybe raise taxes on the rich up to 50%. The right comes back in, reduces everybody's tax by 10% to make creed happy, so now the rich pay 40, middle incomers pay 20. The left gets back in +20% on the rich again, 60/20. right: 50/10. left: 70/10. Right: 60/0. The left targets the rich (who aren't on their side) for tax hikes. If the right countered by giving everybody equal tax cuts when they got in power then the left would still win. They would still get their hyper progressive taxation system. If the left raises taxes on the rich by 20%, then that's what the right is going to have to cut it by, at least. The system that Maggie left:

...Fair. ._. So! Investment income tax abolished. Top rate dropped 43%. Basic rate for everyone else dropped a grand total of 8%. Yeah. And oh, look. Your graph shows that during these tax cuts for the rich, the wealth gap gets wider, and wider, and wider... Then the taxes stop getting cut and the wealth disparity does keep growing, but not quite as fast...

Is still progressive, 40/25. Just not as much as it was before. If the highest tax is 80% of course that rate is going to see a disproportionately higher cut. But as you say VAT and NI bring that 25% back up to near 40, so it's a hyper high 40% flat tax essentially (assuming the rich aren't also paying VAT, making it progressive again). Show me a libertarian arguing for THAT, we don't want anybody paying that much. If the libertarians come into power where somebody is paying 80%, yeah, that person is going to see a huge drop in taxes, because they saw a huge rise in them to get there in the first place. deal.

Yeah, 10% was just too much of a raise in taxes on those poor rich fucks.

10% is almost an extra month of the year having to work for other people not of your choosing for no compensation. Yes 10% is too high.

What are you even fucking talking about now. ._.

Unintended consequences I'm guessing...

So yeah, the War on Drugs. Funny thing is the thing it prosecutes the most is marijuana possession. The echoes of the past... And who can we thank? A bunch of rich fucking fat cat ultacapitalistic cunts.

Ultracapitalist? Now you're just intentionally misrepresenting Koolay's position it seems.

Aaand we're back to the violence thing. Socialism != violence

Government: Give me your money
Koolay: nah
Government: ok then, enjoy prison, and if you resist arrest, bam bam bam, he he he
Creed: hurp durp how is that violent?

How is it not?
There is a vast difference between voluntarily donating your time or money to somebody, and having it forcibly taken by bureaucrats.

Charity does not exist everywhere, and while charity organizations often set up in the most desperate parts of the country, you cannot expect them to shoulder the financial burden on the level that the US Federal Government does, not for very long, anyway.

Not if people are paying, or afraid that they'll soon have to pay, rates like 80%, no. And if the government is already doing it...

If you are hungry, and dying of starvation, you have a right to ask the restaurant owner to please feed you. If he's a soulless shitstain who refuses? Then yeah, you have a right to rob him of his food because he's a fucking piece of shit subhuman inconsiderate man who would become an accomplice to your death by starvation because of his stingy endless fucking greed!

Just enslave him, that'll work, he's now subhuman so no moral issues. He has to work for you for free, problem solved, no?

1: You give me something knowing I cannot pay for it, to help me out, without guarantee I could even pay you back at a later date, with no hope that I could because, again, I have nothing but what you've given me. Welcome to socialism, comrade.

Welcome to not understanding the difference between voluntary charity and socialism, comrade. Hint, libertarian's aren't against voluntary charity (without getting into objectivism..., which even then is misrepresented)

You tell me no, that all you have is all yours, you earned it, and if I have nothing that you want, then tough shit for me, it's not your problem. I am now in a desperate situation. I have asked nicely. I have no other means but violence. So I attack you and beat the shit out of you and take a whole bunch of your shit because I have no other alternatives. I leave you broken and paralyzed.

Maybe he pegged you as a violent entitled asshole, who if refused help would get more violent and take more than he required. I'll not ever be helping you now after having read that, worst thing I've read in a while. And you're only asking nicely as a courtesy before violently taking his stuff, why bother? Just start taking it and then get violent if he tries to stop you brah, save some time, there's lots of looting to be done and only so many hours in the day to do it in.

Eventually you are left with nothing, and you die of lack of care because nobody else is going to help you at total guaranteed loss because this is the True Free Market that everyone lives by that is so wonderful. You suffer and die for your selfishness because you were presented with a quandary; a principle of that socialism thing you rail against, or being a selfish dickhole who is now forcing a desperate man to resort to violence.

Again, this assumes he doesn't have insurance, family, charities (who might be more inclined to help quadriplegic shopkeepers who are paralysed due to being victims of assault rather than the looting marauders who think taking peoples shit, and paralyzing them if they refuse is a good idea). And again, voluntary charity =/= socialism, I doubt Koolay has any issues with voluntary charity, seems to be what he's advocating for brah.
Also, you didn't leave Koolay unable to communicate, congratulations, now the mob you mocked is coming after you.




Quite frankly this whole debate is ridiculous, income disparity is not in and of itself an issue. Who gives a flying fuck if some guy or gal gets richer because everybody else chose to give that person some of their income for some new product they devised that everybody voluntarily purchased because they decided that it gave them greater value in their life than the cash they previously had. Voluntary trade happened, income disparity rose, yet everybody is better off for it. I'm disappointed in this one Koolay.