Willing to pay 1 million dollars for a fucking parking space, refuses to pay fair share in taxes that would help their country substantially. Rich people logic

@NetRunner

I know "you're saying" there are still valid reasons to participate. You say that every disagreement.

I'm saying, the only thing you're doing is giving legitimacy to a broken, fucked up, backward ass system..
One that will NOT produce the desired outcome in the appropriate time scale.

If Dems won every Congressional & Presidential election for the next 40 years, how much progress do you think would be made?

Green energy, free college all, universal healthcare and the deconstruction on the Military Industrial Complex?

Stop deluding yourself, all the same laws that have allowed the corporate coup d'etat to occur will still be in place.

Those interests would continue to manipulate the system and it would be made all-the-more-easy now that they only have one party to focus on.

Dems have had majority control of Congress since 2006 and what do we get. Expansion of Iraq & Afghanistan conflicts.
Bailouts for Gazillionaires.
Healthcare mandates that funnel more money to shitty service providers.
[oh, thanks for letting me stay on parents insurance. Nevermind that the cheap ass insurance refuses to pays for a goddamn thing.]

To boot, Barack Obama current King of the Democrats murdered a citizen without a valid charge or cause of action.

That goes against all the supposed values of Democrats and you wholly ignored addressing this GLARING issue with your "Dems are better" argument.

So it's clear, QuantumNetrunner, that your not here to expand your horizons or any of that nonsense.

You're only here to make excuses for the continuation of broken system.

All cause you're to scared or indoctrinated to call Dems out for what the really are: Corporate sponsored slimeballs clinging to the coat tails of ACTUAL progressive individuals,movements and ideas.. for Public Relations purposes.

There is definitely a lot of truth to that. My dad I was told was mostly a C student at a mediocre university ended up a CEO for 30+ years.

I couldnt say that I was much better but what I studied was art, haha. Ive been stuck getting paid salaries that while are more than the national average really arent shit for where I live for the last decade. The amount of research and creative process I have to go through daily for shit like the latest screamo band on Epitaph youd think Id have a PHD in marketing. All of these assholes need their art but they refuse to pay. If only I had a masters degree it would mean I would be more likely to get a job to hang pictures on a wall and sip wine all day or teach Art History from a 40 page volume while shagging the 22 year old babes. Bastards.



>> ^chilaxe:

>> ^shagen454:
While those who went to decent universities and received their BAs will still find it incredibly difficult to find a job. At this point it seems only possible to receive a fair and decent job if one has a masters degree or higher... and more than likely most working class families can not afford that or if they do they are plunged into the debt for life system.

My friend who was untalented and mediocre in every way had a job offer for $80k when he completed his undergrad.
Here's the trick: unlike most of my friends (and myself), he majored in something that society finds valuable enough that it's willing to pay for: accounting.
We should be clear what we're talking about when we say there are problems with unemployment: people don't want to work hard at jobs that the economy actually needs.

Also just in: Cenk Uygur refuses to pay punch-in-the-face taxes.

Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security "unacceptable."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704728004576176741120691736.html

Sixty-four percent [of Tea Party supporters] believe that the president has increased taxes for most Americans, despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans got a tax cut under the Obama administration. Thirty-four percent of the general public says the president has raised taxes on most Americans. (Not pertinent to this discussion, but hilarious regardless since Obama is apparently some socialist out to raise everyone's taxes.)

62 percent [of Tea Party supporters] say programs like Social Security and Medicare are worth the costs to taxpayers.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002529-503544.html

So... they're big on balancing the budget, but don't want to cut these social programs, but think we have to cut spending. *scratching head*

We should just magically pay for them and balance the budget I guess by cutting spending on other programs that don't amount to a hill of beans.

And FYI, I don't mean to pick on Tea Partiers specifically. Most supporters of any political party or faction doesn't understand the federal budget, etc. They want everything without paying for it.

>> ^bobknight33:

Get you head out of the sand. your so wrong its embarrassing.
>> ^longde:
Bullshit. Here's what really happens:
Democrats: Borrow, but raise taxes to pay off debt
Republicans: Borrow, lower taxes, pass costly entitlements, start huge costly wars
Teabaggers: Refuse to pay debts; refuse to borrow; OK with spending on costly entitlements; cut entitlement for "less deserving" groups to save cost
>> ^bobknight33:
Democrats say We should keep borrowing money and create more debt.
Republicans say We should keep borrowing money and create more debt.
Tea Party say Stop borrowing and stop spending.
Which group has the right answer?

Get you head out of the sand. your so wrong its embarrassing.

>> ^longde:

Bullshit. Here's what really happens:
Democrats: Borrow, but raise taxes to pay off debt
Republicans: Borrow, lower taxes, pass costly entitlements, start huge costly wars
Teabaggers: Refuse to pay debts; refuse to borrow; OK with spending on costly entitlements; cut entitlement for "less deserving" groups to save cost
>> ^bobknight33:
Democrats say We should keep borrowing money and create more debt.
Republicans say We should keep borrowing money and create more debt.
Tea Party say Stop borrowing and stop spending.
Which group has the right answer?

Bullshit. Here's what really happens:

Democrats: Borrow, but raise taxes to pay off debt
Republicans: Borrow, lower taxes, pass costly entitlements, start huge costly wars
Teabaggers: Refuse to pay debts; refuse to borrow; OK with spending on costly entitlements; cut entitlement for "less deserving" groups to save cost

>> ^bobknight33:
Democrats say We should keep borrowing money and create more debt.
Republicans say We should keep borrowing money and create more debt.
Tea Party say Stop borrowing and stop spending.
Which group has the right answer?

>> ^blankfist:

Two comments in and you're back to your old games again. Where did I say "all" immigrants will be poor or "all" immigrants will refuse to pay taxes? Notice I mentioned US citizens as well. But you probably missed that while only listening to what you wanted to hear.

I was asking a question, not impugning your character. What I got in response (quoted below) was an attack on my character.

Comes across as hostile to me.

>> ^blankfist:

Two comments in and you're back to your old games again. Where did I say "all" immigrants will be poor or "all" immigrants will refuse to pay taxes? Notice I mentioned US citizens as well. But you probably missed that while only listening to what you wanted to hear.

Seriously blankie, what's with the hostility? Forgive me for just this once talking like a normal person and saying "all" when I should've said "disproportionately."

I was mostly just asking about whether you thought immigrants were a special class of people with different demographics than the indigenous population, because I don't see the how you link immigration to the solvency of a social safety net unless you presuppose that immigrants are either going to be disproportionately poor, or disproportionately likely to commit some form of fraud (tax or entitlement).

>> ^blankfist:
It's not that "all" immigrants are poor, it's that if you were poor and you realized you could go somewhere and have access to things you'd not normally have access to, then what're the odds of you exploiting that?
It's a numbers game. The more you allow for exploits in a system, the more it'll be exploited. Etc. Same goes with citizenry and citizenry birth. But the real difference, I believe, is that if you are stable in your home country, you're probably less likely to migrate somewhere just for the entitlements. The opposite is probably more likely however if you're not stable. Is that not a reasonable assumption?


So here's the part where I walk on eggshells and gently point out that you do seem to be saying that immigrants will be disproportionately likely to be poor or commit fraud.

You're also tossing in that you think native born citizens will be that way too. If that's the case, then we're back to "so what does immigration have to do with anything?"


Let's say we turned America into a Finnish-style welfare state -- taxes are high, infrastructure is modern and in good repair, our public schools are the best in the world, our health care system is both cost effective and provides quality care, unemployment is low, our budget is in surplus, our unemployment benefits are generous (and have no time limit), and we have a growing private sector with a heavy technology focus.

If we then threw the gates wide open on immigration, I think you're right; most of the people coming here would be poorer than the average American, and at least in the short run, it'd be bad for the government's net fiscal situation -- more people on welfare, without a completely offsetting tax revenue increase.

But over the long run, I think the situation would reverse. The immigrants and their children would get a free, quality education. They'd get first class health care. They'd have access to public transportation, and a healthy jobs market. For the most part, they'd "exploit" the advantages offered to them to bootstrap themselves into a more productive, wealthier, tax-paying lifestyle. In the long run, the state's investments in the human capital of those immigrants would pay dividends that go beyond mere economic growth, it'd also diversify and enrich the culture of their nation, and bring new ideas and different ways of thinking into the shared project of their society.

Which is to say, I don't think immigration poses a fiscal problem for welfare states.

Bigotry on the other hand, that poses a problem for left-wing policies of all kinds. I don't really think that's a strike against the policies of the left though.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
The fear is that immigrants come over and are allowed access to certain entitlements. For instance, hospitals cannot turn anyone away, so some US citizens and immigrants use this loophole to receive free health care. When they don't pay their bills, the rest of us subsidize them.
I guess I'm still not sure why this would be a problem. Are you assuming all immigrants will be poor? That all immigrants will refuse to pay taxes?
I don't really see why population growth through immigration would be substantively different than population growth through birth. I can see why politically it would be viewed differently, but I don't think shrinking the social safety net would reduce anti-immigrant sentiment.


Two comments in and you're back to your old games again. Where did I say "all" immigrants will be poor or "all" immigrants will refuse to pay taxes? Notice I mentioned US citizens as well. But you probably missed that while only listening to what you wanted to hear.

It's not that "all" immigrants are poor, it's that if you were poor and you realized you could go somewhere and have access to things you'd not normally have access to, then what're the odds of you exploiting that?

It's a numbers game. The more you allow for exploits in a system, the more it'll be exploited. Etc. Same goes with citizenry and citizenry birth. But the real difference, I believe, is that if you are stable in your home country, you're probably less likely to migrate somewhere just for the entitlements. The opposite is probably more likely however if you're not stable. Is that not a reasonable assumption?

>> ^blankfist:

The fear is that immigrants come over and are allowed access to certain entitlements. For instance, hospitals cannot turn anyone away, so some US citizens and immigrants use this loophole to receive free health care. When they don't pay their bills, the rest of us subsidize them.

I guess I'm still not sure why this would be a problem. Are you assuming all immigrants will be poor? That all immigrants will refuse to pay taxes?

I don't really see why population growth through immigration would be substantively different than population growth through birth. I can see why politically it would be viewed differently, but I don't think shrinking the social safety net would reduce anti-immigrant sentiment.

>> ^blankfist:


No, to extend your metaphor again, you chose to walk down the street and they shoved a crappy piece of steak in your gullet and forced you to swallow. You also chose to be alive on that day, so they fed you. Then you refused to pay filet mignon prices.
See how stupid that line of reasoning sounds? That's how I feel whenever someone says "You chose to live in this country/state" and "if you don't like it, move!". It's like telling blacks to move out if they don't like the burning cross in front of their house. Essentially this is the statist equivalent of Godwin's Law, but way, way, way worse. And ends the discussion for me.


You're not extending the metaphor, you're ignoring the metaphor, and creating a new one that doesn't represent reality.

A little Econ 101. Conventional market economics concerns things that are both rival and excludable. A resource that is rival can only be used by one person at a time (e.g. I'm eating this steak, so you can't eat it too). Excludable means it's relatively easy to keep someone else from using the commodity (e.g. put your excess steak in a freezer behind a locked door).

Animal control service is not excludable. If a rabid dog is in LA, and someone pays to have it removed, you get the benefit of that service just by living nearby. If you don't have a standing policy of removing all rabid dogs wherever they pop up, then you've got a problem everywhere, since rabid dogs don't care who paid for "animal control service" or not, they're just going to wander around spreading rabies randomly.

Animal control service is the steak. You're eating it by virtue of living in an area that has it. To refuse to pay for it is to demand a free lunch, not a refusal of the service.

If you want to really refuse the service, you need to move someplace where they don't practice animal control, or convince California to stop doing it completely.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
To extend your metaphor, the expensive steak restaurant down the street decided to shove their low quality steak down your throat and charge you for the prime filet mignon. Sure, you weren't hungry and didn't even ask for the steak, but now you have to pay for it. And they want to write down what you've eaten.

But that's not what happened. You moved to California. You got a dog. You weren't forced to do either of those things.
Metaphorically, that's walking into the steakhouse, and ordering a steak, and now you're refusing to pay the price on the menu.
Your reasoning? You think the decor they chose for the restaurant is more expensive than you think it should've been, the heating/cooling system was too expensive, their waiters have health care benefits that you think are too generous, and you think rather than buying their meat from a sustainable farm, they should buy their meat from some factory farm, and therefore you feel you shouldn't be "forced" to pay for things you didn't personally choose.
Except, you chose to come into the steakhouse, and ordered a steak from them...


No, to extend your metaphor again, you chose to walk down the street and they shoved a crappy piece of steak in your gullet and forced you to swallow. You also chose to be alive on that day, so they fed you. Then you refused to pay filet mignon prices.

See how stupid that line of reasoning sounds? That's how I feel whenever someone says "You chose to live in this country/state" and "if you don't like it, move!". It's like telling blacks to move out if they don't like the burning cross in front of their house. Essentially this is the statist equivalent of Godwin's Law, but way, way, way worse. And ends the discussion for me.

>> ^blankfist:

To extend your metaphor, the expensive steak restaurant down the street decided to shove their low quality steak down your throat and charge you for the prime filet mignon. Sure, you weren't hungry and didn't even ask for the steak, but now you have to pay for it. And they want to write down what you've eaten.


But that's not what happened. You moved to California. You got a dog. You weren't forced to do either of those things.

Metaphorically, that's walking into the steakhouse, and ordering a steak, and now you're refusing to pay the price on the menu.

Your reasoning? You think the decor they chose for the restaurant is more expensive than you think it should've been, the heating/cooling system was too expensive, their waiters have health care benefits that you think are too generous, and you think rather than buying their meat from a sustainable farm, they should buy their meat from some factory farm, and therefore you feel you shouldn't be "forced" to pay for things you didn't personally choose.

Except, you chose to come into the steakhouse, and ordered a steak from them...

British law is a bit confusing to me. Is this like a libertarian uprising? A local tax that somebody is refusing to pay in order to prove that the local government has no right to levy it?

I would very much appreciate if someone could explain this situation a bit more. Thanks!