|
Yay, collaborators! I was honestly just thinking of setting it up as a wiki. It's a collaborative informational thing, so it would make sense that way. No idea how the various wiki hosting sites are though.Literally The Worst posted:Google Ron Paul
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 02:53 |
|
|
I started a wiki on wikia and the first article. I'm eager but new to this game so some help is appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Awesome! I will start adding content once I figure out how to format things properly. edit: added a page for everyone's favorite professor. Goon Danton fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:The usual libertarian line is that there is nothing wrong with labor unions in as much as there is nothing wrong with any voluntary organization that adheres to the NAP and respects property rights. Which, of course, entails defanging unions, which often need to have resort to tactics that entail violations of property rights if the force of the law does not protect their actions. One way or another, union effectiveness requires subordinating principles of non-aggression and respect for property to the principles of social justice and righteous class warfare, whether this occurs through the mechanisms of the law or not. Retracting some of the forceful tactics, backed by the force of the law or their own illegal use of force, which unions can avail themselves of is therefore something consistent with libertarian principles. As is the case with basically all positions, it's easy to argue that Libertarians are for or against it because "just don't violate the NAP" is meaningless if you don't have a universal understanding of what "aggression" is Jrod's flavor of libertarianism would likely argue that RTW laws are bad, because no one is forcing a business to sign an exclusivity contract with a union; that's just the free market. There's no such thing as economic coercion, there's only forceful coercion Other flavors of libertarianism argue that RTW laws are good because unions are coercive
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
My libertarian coworker is trying a new tack on facebook:quote:As the delegate gap widens on both sides of the isle, it is looking more and more like we will have the great pleasure of witnessing Trump and Hillary hash it out on national television until November. As entertaining as this will be, it's always good to remember that we need a viable candidate that is not 100% bat poo poo crazy. Based on the support that both Trump and Sanders are garnering, I think the American people have made it clear that we are fed up with establishment Republicans and Democrats alike. But fret not! There will be a third and fourth candidate on the ballots in all 50 states! Unfortunately the libertarian and green candidates will not be participating in the republican vs. democrat debates (there is a petition circulating on change.org to fix this... go sign it!), but if you are interested in reading about a potential third party candidate, look into Gary Johnson. He is not promising free college or a Muslim and Mexican-free America, but he likes marijuana and a small, efficient government! Scared of what you have heard about the libertarian platform? Educate yourselves about it just like you have educated yourselves about democratic socialism! I think you may be in for a pleasant surprise. For what it's worth, Gary Johnson sides with Bernie Sanders on 73% of the issues, according to isidewith.com (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/19/candidate-us-voters-are-libertarian-but-dont-know-it.html). Jill Stein will most likely be the Green Party candidate. Read about her too! So keep your head up America. There will be other options available! Well gosh, Trump and Clinton are both so crazy. Trump wants to purge the country of the unclean, and Clinton wants to, uh, anyway look into Gary Johnson who definitely is not crazy in any way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
Is it kosher to link to offsite forum posts? I found one supporting Gary Johnson which even tried defending his support of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other assorted bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Is it kosher to link to offsite forum posts? I found one supporting Gary Johnson which even tried defending his support of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other assorted bullshit. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Is it kosher to link to offsite forum posts? I found one supporting Gary Johnson which even tried defending his support of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other assorted bullshit. Reddit idiocy shows up sometimes and is always delightful, I don't think some other forum would be different.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Is it kosher to link to offsite forum posts? I found one supporting Gary Johnson which even tried defending his support of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other assorted bullshit. If you're worried people will touch the poop you can just quote 'em here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=56082&page=34#entry4198350 Flat taxes? Check. "The government doesn't have to stop businessowners from discriminating against minorities!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Oh boy he's citing the planned parenthood video as proof the government shouldn't fund them. And claiming they're a for-profit company because they charge for some services. We have a genius on our hands here, folks...
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
this fuckin guy posted:The rich would be hurt the MOST by the flat tax. On the surface, yes, the highest brackets are taxed at a greater percentage than the lower tax brackets, this much is fact. However, with our convoluted tax code, people who make the most money also abuse tax loopholes, deductions, and the like to lower their tax obligation. This was a big issue a few years ago when left-winged liberal business owner and economic "guru" Warren Buffet claimed that many rich individuals and businesses were abusing tax laws to the point that they actually paid, percentage-wise, LESS than the middle class. This is because there are so many ways to reduce tax responsibility that are available to the super-rich that the lesser income people have no access to. A flat tax would actually harm these people more than help, because they would officially have no loopholes or deductions to hide from. Ergo, logically, it is fair to say that compared to the current tax code, a flat tax IS more fair. "If only we had a flat tax, then there wouldn't be any loopholes! There is no conceivable progressive tax system without loopholes." How the gently caress do these people function. Yeah I guess if you lower the income tax to the loving capital gains tax level, then you won't be able to pay less taxes by taking part of your salary in stock options, but you're still paying the same lovely low rates that you were before this magical tax overhaul. Not to mention the droves of programs he clearly plans on gutting via freedom Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Oh boy he's citing the planned parenthood video as proof the government shouldn't fund them. And claiming they're a for-profit company because they charge for some services. We have a genius on our hands here, folks... Leave it to a libertarian to miss the distinction between profit and revenue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Is it kosher to link to offsite forum posts? I found one supporting Gary Johnson which even tried defending his support of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other assorted bullshit. The RFRA is a pretty good law that's consistent with libertarian principles, to wit. It's only laughable if he supports its perversion from protecting religious minorities to enshrining straight male hegemony in the guise of Christianity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
So just eliminate the loopholes? And, yes, I'm obviously aware that "eliminate loopholes" is not a legitimate plan. Within a decade of reforming the tax code you'd have them all back through piecemeal legislation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Flat tax fetishism is very weird. It makes sense from a "I'm rich and want to pay less taxes" point of view, but it's sold as a transparency and simplicity point of view. And that would only make sense if you were to calculate your taxe with an abacus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
If you don't like math and someone is promising you they'll make the math easier, you probably won't want to dig into the exact mechanics of how the new system works. Also, if you see yourself as an overtaxed hard worker in a country full of moochers who don't pay anything, a flat tax sounds like it will shift some of your unfair burden onto those moochers so you can come out ahead. Granted, both of those ideas are wrong, but it's easy to see why people would think they're right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:If you don't like math and someone is promising you they'll make the math easier, you probably won't want to dig into the exact mechanics of how the new system works. Also, if you see yourself as an overtaxed hard worker in a country full of moochers who don't pay anything, a flat tax sounds like it will shift some of your unfair burden onto those moochers so you can come out ahead. Granted, both of those ideas are wrong, but it's easy to see why people would think they're right.  It all makes sense now! "Smaller government" because they can't actually name what they're going to cut and how much money it costs, just "everything like the EPA"
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
We should just cut foreign aid, it would make a big difference! It's what, like, a quarter of the budget, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
The strangest part of that to me is that it's a Fire Emblem fansite's forum.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Flat tax fetishism is very weird. It makes sense from a "I'm rich and want to pay less taxes" point of view, but it's sold as a transparency and simplicity point of view. And that would only make sense if you were to calculate your taxe with an abacus. It's not that. Have you ever seen your itemized pay stub? It's gibberish, and even if you aren't "rich" but just middle or upper middle class it's very easy to see a lot of money evaporate into thin air before you can touch it. The idea of "flat tax" is sold by simplicity because it is. Most people are convinced those below them are paying no taxes because poors, and most people above them pay no taxes because lawyers. Then they take a look at their actual pay stub and all of a sudden realize 4400 gross has turned in 2600 after taxes, health insurance, 401k, everything kicks in. So flat tax, no Obamacare, no benefits for people that don't work is sold as "it's simple and you don't get ripped off".
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
MysteriousStranger posted:It's not that. Have you ever seen your itemized pay stub? It's gibberish, and even if you aren't "rich" but just middle or upper middle class it's very easy to see a lot of money evaporate into thin air before you can touch it. The idea of "flat tax" is sold by simplicity because it is. Most people are convinced those below them are paying no taxes because poors, and most people above them pay no taxes because lawyers. Then they take a look at their actual pay stub and all of a sudden realize 4400 gross has turned in 2600 after taxes, health insurance, 401k, everything kicks in. Yeah, people griping about their paystub is hilarious. "$250 to Roth IRA? Who the gently caress is Roth IRA and why is he taking all my money??? Jew bastards!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
One of the other funny things in that rambling screed is him revealing his income as $27k/year. Which is a respectable amount to earn until you realise he only earned $1200 of it via actual employment and the rest through stocks and shares. Truly, a prime candidate for Going Galt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Yeah, people griping about their paystub is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Why are 4.62 of my biweekly shekels being spent on "VAC ACC" dammit! Valve can pay for its own Anti-Cheat!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:So just eliminate the loopholes? No, it's a legitimate point that you're making. Flat tax people use arguments for cutting deductions in an attempt to justify a flat tax when a flat tax actually helps the rich the most. "But we'll come out ahead thanks to the loss of deductions" is meaningless because you'd come out even further ahead by dropping deductions and keeping progressive tax brackets. Flat taxers are basically lying con artists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:One of the other funny things in that rambling screed is him revealing his income as $27k/year. Which is a respectable amount to earn until you realise he only earned $1200 of it via actual employment and the rest through stocks and shares. Truly, a prime candidate for Going Galt. Low-income white male supports policies that benefit rich people and not himself YOU DON'T SAY
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:No, it's a legitimate point that you're making. Flat tax people use arguments for cutting deductions in an attempt to justify a flat tax when a flat tax actually helps the rich the most. "But we'll come out ahead thanks to the loss of deductions" is meaningless because you'd come out even further ahead by dropping deductions and keeping progressive tax brackets. Flat taxers are basically lying con artists. This is what's always bugged me about the flat tax arguments. Conservatives sell it as something that is actually anti-rich people because it'll supposedly get rid of deductions and thus even if the actual rate is lowered, they'll end up paying more. But if the goal truly was to get rich people to pay more, then why not (as you say) just close the loving loopholes while keeping the rates the same? It's also baffling because because if the rich wind up paying more under a flat tax, then doesn't that go against one of the cardinal rules of conservative economics, that the job creators being taxed more will lead to job losses?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:This is what's always bugged me about the flat tax arguments. Conservatives sell it as something that is actually anti-rich people because it'll get rid of deductions and thus even if the actual rate is lowered, they'll end up paying more. But if the goal truly was to get rich people to pay more, then why not (as you say) just close the loving loopholes while keeping the rates the same? It's also baffling because because if the rich wind up paying more under a flat tax, then doesn't that go against one of the cardinal rules of conservative economics, that the job creators being taxed more will lead to job losses? That's because the argument for wanting a flat tax is wanting a flat tax. Then they just spout the bullshit they think you want to hear to go along with their position.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
The desire for a flat tax is pretty understandable. Modern society is extremely complex, and nobody can honestly understand everything without getting overwhelmed. So taking one particular complicated aspect and turning it into something simple is really attractive. It also fits in with the idea that the rich pay few taxes because of "loopholes," places where the tax code is just so complicated that you can use tricks to get ahead. But of course it's not due to complexity that the rich are taxed less, but rather because that's how the system is designed. e: The desire among poor people is understandable, that is. The desire for a flat tax among the oligarchy is also understandable, but for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
And just like "regulations" that nobody ever identifies, "loopholes" are the numerous deductions and credits that it can be nearly suicidal for a politician to actually identify. Like, the Mortgage Interest Deduction mainly benefits the wealthy, but good luck explaining that over a cacophony of Home Owners SuperPAC attack ads.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Flat tax fetishism is very weird. It makes sense from a "I'm rich and want to pay less taxes" point of view, but it's sold as a transparency and simplicity point of view. And that would only make sense if you were to calculate your taxe with an abacus. It's primarily sold on the twin ideals of simplicity and making it impossible to dodge by saying "everybody pays X% of their income. End of story." It's common knowledge at this point that the rich skip on most of their taxes in a variety of ways and poor folks don't pay as high a percentage as others. It sounds real great to middle class folks as they end up paying a higher percentage of their income than everybody else. On paper the purpose is to close tax loopholes. In practice it's a good way of gutting the entire government by decimating its funding and will cause the rich to pay even less than they are now while dicking over the already desperately poor by saddling more expenses on them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
Yeah, the flat-taxers get away with hooking white middle-class voters with the ideas of 1) their taxes are being taken from them and given to people who refuse to work, 2) rich liberals being hypocrites and not actually paying their fair share of taxes, and 3) filing taxes would be so easy, a caveman could do it! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8aj1AlYvxI But I'm repeating everything that's been said. The conservative right and libertarians always argue against the IRS. It's the biggest bad of the big bads, Federal Reserve notwithstanding. Conservative voters are constantly told about how complex the tax code is, and how only people rich enough to have tax lawyers on retainer can ever hope to reap the benefits that are there. Further, the IRS, like most government agencies that conservatives don't like, becomes a political boogeyman of the opposition. So the argument, instead of being "keep what we have, but eliminate loop holes/make it simpler to understand", becomes "close down the IRS, destroy the tax code, start a new, simple, FAIR tax." Because everyone paying the same tax rate is "FAIR". Even if 16% of $1,000/mo is much more important than 16% of $10,000/mo. Of course, nobody ever argues or describes what agency will actually handle collecting the taxes. They shut down the IRS, but who will actually enforce the laws and handle tax evasion? Unless the idea is to have such a tax code that is so loose that rich people in the know skirt it constantly, but middle class and poor people can't and won't out of fear of reprisal, even if the enforcement agency is completely de-fanged. Otherwise, to whet our appetites in anticipation of jrode's return, have this article from The Economist that my libertarian friend posted. The solution to our economic woes is MORE COMPETITION. How do we do that? I don't know, just add MORE COMPETITION and let the market figure it out!
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
I had a conversation with a libertarian about flat taxes last year, well turns out he doesn't know what a flat tax is and actually wants different levels of taxation for different incomes (so a progressive tax system but without any deductions or credits or loopholes), but it took a quick jump to Dr. Manhattan territory
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Bands of flatness!
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
If libertarians were truly concerned about fairness they'd propose a head tax that way job creators wouldn't be punished for earning more money and the economy of the US would finally be unleashed. http://www.demos.org/blog/3/10/14/arguments-flat-taxes-are-universally-bad
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Zeno's Tax Code. A series of infinitely recursive flat taxes that just happen to resemble an incline when viewed from a distance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Zeno's Tax Code. A series of infinitely recursive flat taxes that just happen to resemble an incline when viewed from a distance. Zino's pizza will now be scary to me because I'll subconsciously associate it with libertarianism. gently caress. Flat ta- I mean, no, not the flatbread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:Zino's pizza will now be scary to me because I'll subconsciously associate it with libertarianism. gently caress. hey man, Geno's Cheesesteaks shows that the civil rights act isn't necessary because ~the free market~ will punish those who discriminate!
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 02:53 |
|
|
So Giantbomb recently posted an article about the value of unions in games development. It's pretty good but the relevant bit to this thread is the libertarians appearing the comments to angrily yell about the free market. Here's a taste: some rear end in a top hat posted:
same rear end in a top hat posted:
Full thing is here: http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/guest-column-now-youre-working-with-power/1100-5422/
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 15:51
|
|
