Yeah, you don’t want VAT. It’s absolutely terrible.
I’ll chalk VAT up to just another of the thousand things related to tax I still don’t understand…
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’ll chalk VAT up to just another of the thousand things I express strong opinions about but don’t understand…[/quote]
Fixed.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
We would already have a country sized one if some people would not like their shackles so fucking much. [/quote]
Those aren’t shackles, they’re freedom bracelets.
[/quote]
Chains are still chains, tho’ they be made of gold…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
lol, gotta love Contemporary American Liberals… Cell phones are now a right that should be provided by the government.
I suppose Xbox and Laptops are next then?[/quote]
Blowjobs.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’ve got no problem with a VAT on wants assuming sales tax is eliminated among other things.[/quote]
FFFFUUUUUCCCCKKKKKK that noise.
Given our government’s history, fuck a VAT. Just say no dude. Just say no. [/quote]
I just can’t win in this thread![/quote]
Nah, it is just a general inexperience in taxation…
The VAT sounds great on the surface, until you dig deep into the bowels of taxation and how far down the rabbit hole the blue pill takes you. Then you look at the VAT as the tax from hell that will be in this country. Sort of like the carbon tax will be, but its bigger, shitter and slightly less moronic brother.
[/quote]
Mebbe, but you cannot compare it to an ideal world you need to compare it to the alternatives.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It could be free , [/quote]
What color is the sky in your world?
It isn’t free, the taxpayer’s pay for it. Which is me, seeing as I’m firmly within the small percentage of people in this country that pay the vast majority of taxes collected.
Let this sink in for a moment:
Just because the government hands it to you, doesn’t mean it was free, someone, somewhere paid for it. [/quote]
The tax payers probably already paid for the systems that the cell companies use . Cell service is cheap .
Wow thanks for the info , I did not know tax payers pay for anything , great info
Communication is an essential component of a healthy economy . Poor people with the ability to communicate will result in poor people that can afford to work. Just like poor people with the ability to transport themselves results in poor people that can go to work . Poor people that can live on their wages means I don’t have to subsidize them .
I know you think you got it all figured out but you mouth the same shit FAUX news and the leading so called right tells you to say
You are predictable
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’ll chalk VAT up to just another of the thousand things I express strong opinions about but don’t understand…[/quote]
Fixed.
;)[/quote]
Like everyone else here
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Poor people that can live on their wages means I don’t have to subsidize them .
[/quote]
They are not “poor” at that point. If wages increase due to an increased demand for the work performed, that’s awesome. If wages are forcibly and arbitrarily increased due to the demand of (what should be) an uninvolved third party, that is bad. The statement that I quoted from you can be reworded, “If others are forced to subsidize poor people to an even greater extent, then I will be relieved of my burden.”
I missed this line: Poor people with the ability to communicate will result in poor people that can afford to work.
-Poor people don’t have the ability to communicate? Working is a luxury in your world? In this dimension, few can afford NOT to work. Working’s not a hobby(I guess it can be, if one is smart and talented enough to profit from his hobby).
-Imagine how productive our society would be if we bought mansions for everyone!
-You put the cart before the horse. Subsidization does not make production possible; production makes subsidization possible(this is related to the “unions created the weekend” myth).
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Poor people that can live on their wages means I don’t have to subsidize them .
[/quote]
They are not “poor” at that point. If wages increase due to an increased demand for the work performed, that’s awesome. If wages are forcibly and arbitrarily increased due to the demand of (what should be) an uninvolved third party, that is bad. The statement that I quoted from you can be reworded, “If others are forced to subsidize poor people to an even greater extent, then I will be relieved of my burden.”
I missed this line: Poor people with the ability to communicate will result in poor people that can afford to work.
-Poor people don’t have the ability to communicate? Working is a luxury in your world? In this dimension, few can afford NOT to work. Working’s not a hobby(I guess it can be, if one is smart and talented enough to profit from his hobby).
-Imagine how productive our society would be if we bought mansions for everyone!
-You put the cart before the horse. Subsidization does not make production possible; production makes subsidization possible(this is related to the “unions created the weekend” myth).[/quote]
In my opinion poor is not a necessity ,
Turning the debate into a straw man , makes no point .
Having a home or a phone or access to the internet or transportation makes it progressively easier to get and maintain a job . IMO these are rights in a civilized society . Throw in health care also 
I think the poor debate goes like traffic , (YOU CAN NOT GET AHEAD OF ME ) meaning Poor people can not have nicer cheap shit than rich people that overpay for cheap shit
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
In my opinion poor is not a necessity ,
Turning the debate into a straw man , makes no point .
Having a home or a phone or access to the internet or transportation makes it progressively easier to get and maintain a job . IMO these are rights in a civilized society . Throw in health care also
I think the poor debate goes like traffic , (YOU CAN NOT GET AHEAD OF ME ) meaning Poor people can not have nicer cheap shit than rich people that overpay for cheap shit [/quote]
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
In my opinion poor is not a necessity ,
Turning the debate into a straw man , makes no point .
Having a home or a phone or access to the internet or transportation makes it progressively easier to get and maintain a job . IMO these are rights in a civilized society . Throw in health care also
I think the poor debate goes like traffic , (YOU CAN NOT GET AHEAD OF ME ) meaning Poor people can not have nicer cheap shit than rich people that overpay for cheap shit [/quote]
[/quote]
we disagree , I think that is you and beans . I think especially beans lives in such a small world that you ca not fathom a differing point of view . My sky is the a same colors as yours are , maybe the difference is that you and beans only see one color
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This is the pittster [/quote]
So, in your opinion, the dog represents a home, phone, access to the internet, and transportation, while the cart represents productive value? Or are you saying the finish line represents jobs, the dog represents a home, phone, access to the internet, and transportation, and the cart represents humans? Interesting perspective, to say the least.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This is the pittster [/quote]
So, in your opinion, the dog represents a home, phone, access to the internet, and transportation, while the cart represents productive value? Or are you saying the finish line represents jobs, the dog represents a home, phone, access to the internet, and transportation, and the cart represents humans? Interesting perspective, to say the least.[/quote]
YEAH , an economic engine
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
YEAH , an economic engine
[/quote]
Your response really didn’t answer my question…
The government can improve the economy by:
a. creating jobs for which there is little or no demand, and mandating that those who hold those jobs be paid a certain amount.
b. legislating the price of some or all goods.
c. legislating all facets of the economy.
d. taking ownership of all facets of the economy.
e. a combination of any two or more of the above.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
YEAH , an economic engine
[/quote]
Your response really didn’t answer my question…
The government can improve the economy by:
a. creating jobs for which there is little or no demand, and mandating that those who hold those jobs be paid a certain amount.
b. legislating the price of some or all goods.
c. legislating all facets of the economy.
d. taking ownership of all facets of the economy.
e. a combination of any two or more of the above.[/quote]
The Government does not need to create jobs . The free market will do that . The Gov will have to interfere with the supply and demand on wages and labor .
Supply and demand would have low wage workers rivaling 3rd world countries if only American Law would permit it
Hope that answers your question
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This is the pittster [/quote]
So, in your opinion, the dog represents a home, phone, access to the internet, and transportation, while the cart represents productive value? Or are you saying the finish line represents jobs, the dog represents a home, phone, access to the internet, and transportation, and the cart represents humans? Interesting perspective, to say the least.[/quote]
YEAH , an economic engine
[/quote]
I just realized that I pretty much asked the same thing two ways. Do you really believe that building every citizen a Bill Gates-like home would improve the economy? I know that you will claim that’s not what you were talking about, but it is. Prices exist to allow goods to be distributed to where they are most desired. Unless one understands that simple concept, he really has no business talking about the economy.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
YEAH , an economic engine
[/quote]
Your response really didn’t answer my question…
The government can improve the economy by:
a. creating jobs for which there is little or no demand, and mandating that those who hold those jobs be paid a certain amount.
b. legislating the price of some or all goods.
c. legislating all facets of the economy.
d. taking ownership of all facets of the economy.
e. a combination of any two or more of the above.[/quote]
The Government does not need to create jobs . The free market will do that . The Gov will have to interfere with the supply and demand on wages and labor .
Supply and demand would have low wage workers rivaling 3rd world countries if only American Law would permit it
Hope that answers your question
[/quote]
Is b. your answer?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
YEAH , an economic engine
[/quote]
Your response really didn’t answer my question…
The government can improve the economy by:
a. creating jobs for which there is little or no demand, and mandating that those who hold those jobs be paid a certain amount.
b. legislating the price of some or all goods.
c. legislating all facets of the economy.
d. taking ownership of all facets of the economy.
e. a combination of any two or more of the above.[/quote]
The Government does not need to create jobs . The free market will do that . The Gov will have to interfere with the supply and demand on wages and labor .
Supply and demand would have low wage workers rivaling 3rd world countries if only American Law would permit it
Hope that answers your question
[/quote]
Is b. your answer?
[/quote]
sure I guess so