Complaining about Taxes is pointless

That's a complicated discussion. The original US Constitution was never entirely clear about whether an income tax (in its ordinary form as exists today) was appropriate.
The first income tax did not come into existence until 1862 when the Union needed to raise revenues during the Civil War. At that time no one questioned it because everyone knew they needed to raise revenue during the war.
This was 73 years after the US Constitution went into effect. No state income taxes existed prior to that either.

 

No, it means the honest starve or die by violence. See the history of feudalism, which is minimal government implemented in reality.

GARBAGE. It benefits no one but the privileged, especially landowners. Google "Henry George Theorem" and start reading.

 

garbage is the best description of this envy laden BS. Google "nobody owes you anything"

 

the prohibitionist movement was a big pusher of income tax since one of the most damning arguments against prohibition was the loss of excise taxes on alcohol. The other main reason for the income tax was congress wanted all sorts of power that the bill of rights curtailed.

 

No, that is nothing but more of your disingenuous, despicable, and fallacious ad hominem filth.

Unless you own land, of course. Then anyone who wants to use it owes you whatever value the community has given it. That's why land costs so much. Hello?

 

No, the big reason for income tax was to increase the subsidy to landowners.

No, the other main reason was to increase the welfare subsidy to landowners.

 

you are confused. I attack silly posts. that is not "ad hominem". You should use a dictionary a bit more. . I am sorry that you apparently are not prosperous and blame others for your lot in life. I own some land-let's see- a 26 acre small farm that is now suburban and along with my two brothers about 430 acres in Illinois. Never been there, a bank manages it and it makes my brothers and I about 50K each a year. My great grandfather bought it more than 100 years ago and cousins I have never met own the 430 acres next to it

 

No.

No, you attack the motives and personal qualities of those who identify facts that prove you objectively wrong and your beliefs evil.

You should use a dictionary a bit more.

That is nothing but classic, disingenuous ad hominem filth.

Shocker!!

So you privately pocketed the publicly created land value. Just as I said, you took value from the community without producing it.

So you continue to privately pocket publicly created land value, and wish to continue doing so. No surprises.

So you are keen to rationalize and justify the greed, privilege and parasitism that is profitable to you personally. No surprises.

 

Then given your theory here, why should anyone else repay? Or don't you agree in equality?

 

I agree with equality of rights and of access to opportunity. The people who actually get it should repay it, obviously.

 

The people who get what, exactly?
Can you explain exactly what they should have to repay? Comments like that seem extremely vague.

 

The subsidies -- almost exclusively to the privileged -- that everyone else's taxes pay for.

The benefits they get that other people's taxes pay for, especially the unimproved rental value of land (Henry George Theorem).

You have to follow the context.

 

it's complete nonsense-that holds that poor people are paying for the citizenship benefits of wealthy people. It's absolute envy based bullshit

 

I'm very confused. You are claiming that rich people are given subsidies from the rest of the taxpayers, but rather than end those subsidies, you are saying that taxes should be increased on the wealthy to pay for the subsidies to continue to be given to them?

Why would any of these "wealthy" people approve of being taxed to pay for that money to just be given back to them?
How exactly does that make any sense?

It's very hard to understand this without a more specific example.

 

I make more money than a lot of people my age in this area so I don't mind paying more taxes, but damn I wish I felt that we were actually getting something for it. I feel like we are sliding further and further off the side of the road with each President and Congressional term. For every one thing they may get right, it seems like there are twenty things they do completely backwards and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight. Heck, they are now campaigning on the most BS stuff imaginable and people are cheering them on. Both parties suck.

 

"Citizenship benefits"? No, the privileges. Citizenship benefits would benefit all citizens. Privileges -- which is what you favor over liberty and justice -- benefit only the privileged.

No, but that is absolute greed-based bull$#!+.

That working people are forcibly robbed through taxes to provide benefits for the privileged is fact, as the Henry George Theorem proves.

 

That is not an accident.

No, the privileged are. How many times do I have to repeat it?

<sigh> The privileged.

Right, because the subsidies include civilization, which the privileged are legally entitled to charge the rest of us full market value for access to.

They wouldn't, of course. They prefer to get the subsidies at everyone else's expense.

It makes perfect sense if you are one of the robbed, rather than the robbers.

Google "Henry George Theorem" and start reading.

 

your definition of privileges is peculiar, not widely accepted and designed to support a specious argument. The Georgian argument is specious bullshit

 

Then offer a better one, or a more accurate term for the legal entitlements I am talking about. Don't just claim there should be no words to identify the facts I identify.

No, the argument is factual and irrefutable.

No, it is indisputable economic fact.

 

Landowners are getting something for your taxes. Google "Henry George Theorem" and start reading.

 

nah, your stilted opinions are not facts. and privilege is an inaccurate loaded term that is not valid when applied to society as you do. It drips of envy.

 

have you ever figured out that Henry George's views are widely rejected and his OPINIONS mean nothing

 

Yet somehow, you cannot refute a single sentence I have written.

No, it merely identifies economic facts that you would prefer people not know. So you deny, but cannot refute them.

 

its opinion-look it up. you haven't provided any relevant facts. You don't like how society is ordered.

 

Not by anyone who can accurately state them (i.e., doesn't include you), they aren't.

The facts are as stated, and you have yet to offer any sort of factual or logical counter-argument. All you can do is shriek that you don't want the facts of economics to be what they indisputably are.