What is the Republicuck's logic in raising taxes on the middle class while giving the rich huge tax cuts...

>be rich
>have taken a lot of your money from you
>constantly hear talking about taking even more
>have children, wife, car, and house
>have to be careful in keeping my money close. if not, that crazy jew sanders just might set taxes to 99,99%
>contrary to my belief, mr. trump gets elected
>mr. be rich, we'll just tax you at the same % as everyone else
>get more money, my finances are safe
>start to invest my millions into something
>profit or loss, its a profit for society
>what is the logic

please describe how they are taking it from you.

Deleted, let me rephrase:

My money is taken by the wealthy by coercive means, how is it that when those who have their wealth taken decide to take it back because we have the numbers to do so: we're the ones labelled as "taking someone else's money"?

Job market is terrible, unemployment is rife. As a result I am forced to take a job that I don't want or I starve. "Do what I want or starve" is taking my labour and taxing it is coercive. I form apart of a social movement who realize that it's bullshit to do so, so we take it back. Only then you have the problem? Why not before?

> I form apart of a social movement who realize that it's bullshit to do so, so we take it back. Only then you have the problem? Why not before?

this part got me completely and utterly lost. what the fuck does you being part of some mystical movement have to do with anything? and you ''take it back''? bank robbers? waving signs?

>Job market is terrible, unemployment is rife. As a result I am forced to take a job that I don't want or I starve. "Do what I want or starve" is taking my labour and taxing it is coercive.

this sure was painful to read. ''do what i want or starve'' is a false equivalence to coercion. if it was ''due what i want or i will kil lyou'' it'd be true. no one is forcing you to starve, no one is keeping you from finding food through other means, no one but yourself and your lack of abilities, or the state which tells you what you can and cannot do, along with restrictions.

you, my young shitposter, have a problem with stereotypical greedy buisnesses, and the government. anyone who is rich (or even a good part of them) are not doing anything negative to your income.

> ''do what i want or starve'' is a false equivalence to coercion

No, it isn't. Standing by while someone dies when you can do something about it is a perfect equivalency to murder.

>no one is forcing you to starve, no one is keeping you from finding food through other means, no one but yourself and your lack of abilities, or the state which tells you what you can and cannot do, along with restrictions.

Like stealing? Because that's totally moral while retaking wealth from the wealthy isn't. Seems legit.

>anyone who is rich (or even a good part of them) are not doing anything negative to your income.

When you control the power of employment, they are and do do negative things to the employment of everyone below them. And No, I'm not just talking about the wealthy either. Take the Soviet Union for example: exact same case. Those with the power over the capital flows enslave those below them. And just like with those in the Soviet Union, those with the control of the capital make the rules, as evidenced by the funding and control the rich have over politics in the west.

What part of
>-0.2%
>-1.1%
or
>-1.1%
looks like the middle class is having more money?

>nobody is entitled to another person's income
Oh boy one of those Ayn Rand lunatics is on the loose again

>No, it isn't. Standing by while someone dies when you can do something about it is a perfect equivalency to murder.

this is one of the stupidests things i have ever read. you either just turned 18 and is a bleeding heart libtard, or what they say about your flag rings true.

if i have enough medicine to save one child, and i have to choose between my own daughter, or someone i dont know, and i choose my daughter, it isnt murder. neglecting to do something good is not the equivalent of being cause or reason for something evil.

>Like stealing? Because that's totally moral while retaking wealth from the wealthy isn't. Seems legit.

within the law, aussie. no one is stopping you from putting your talents to use, write a book, get a more physical job, get an education worth something. if people dont want to buy it, then it is not the rich peoples fault. if you are not allowed to sell your book, it is because the state says so.

>When you control the power of employment, they are and do do negative things to the employment of everyone below them. And No, I'm not just talking about the wealthy either. Take the Soviet Union for example: exact same case. Those with the power over the capital flows enslave those below them. And just like with those in the Soviet Union, those with the control of the capital make the rules, as evidenced by the funding and control the rich have over politics in the west.

what, exactly, would the reason for purposefully keeping others from getting rich be? its either to remain in power, or because a mental reason, such a severe egoism, apathy, sadism, etc.

the normal rich guy does not suffer if you or anyone else gets rich, just like no one does.

you seem to assume that just because all greedy bastards with significant power are rich people, all rich people are greedy bastards with significant power. it is objectively wrong.

This. It's like they don't know how multiplication works. You could reduce taxes for lower brackets by 10% and reduce taxes for higher brackets by 3% and liberals would still yell "MUH TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH"

So your argument is that you reverse a factual statement into a knee-jerk response based upon your personal beliefs of what democrats might say in a sweeping generalization?

Have you ever been offered a job from a poor person?

Anyone who's played SimCity4 knows that if you want tax revenue you tax the poor.
1. There are more of them so you make a more by adding little bits
2. there's nothing they can do about it because they're fucking poor, disgusting >:-/

Why can't the government survive on donations?

Why can't corporations?

So your argument is (insert a list of long words here to appear as if I have something smart to say when I'm really just talking out my ass)
Your prose is awful.

This, and also when you tax the poor they either educate and work to become not poor or they move out and stop moving in

>if i have enough medicine to save one child
Oh boy. I know this was just an example and analogy, but you have no idea how ridiculous you talking about medicines is. I won't even bother to explain, but I just had to say it.

>if i have enough medicine to save one child, and i have to choose between my own daughter, or someone i dont know, and i choose my daughter, it isnt murder. neglecting to do something good is not the equivalent of being cause or reason for something evil.

Because 32 trillion dollars of untaxed or lowly taxed money from the rich tax dodging being held in offshore accounts mean "only having enough medicine to save one child". 10/10, got me buckling over.

>no one is stopping you from putting your talents to use, write a book, get a more physical job, get an education worth something. if people dont want to buy it, then it is not the rich peoples fault.

Oh this might work in one case, or a few or a few thousand or a few hundred thousand, but what about everyone else. Not everyone has marketable talents or education. When you look at this from the standpoint of pure individualism, it make sense. But 7 billion people on the earth means individualism is worth nothing compared to the greater group. Your statement was flawed from the very beginning.

>within the law, aussie.

And who determines law? The voter who has been indoctrinated by the media at large to support one side or another? Or the kingmakers who donate millions to political camps decide policy direction and get tax cuts and other benefits? Which do you think?

>what, exactly, would the reason for purposefully keeping others from getting rich be? its either to remain in power, or because a mental reason, such a severe egoism, apathy, sadism, etc.

It has nothing to do with keeping other people rich. Anyone with enough brains and sadism can accomplish that. It has to do with keeping everyone else poor, so those who control the capital can gain the most from their labour.

part 2 since I ran out of room:

you seem to assume that just because all greedy bastards with significant power are rich people, all rich people are greedy bastards with significant power.

The fact that they are rich in the first place immediately makes them greedy, to a certain extent. Greedy isn't a fixed describable term.

Also anyone who has significant wealth immediately has significant power. In this world, those who hold the money hold the power. It is in fact objectively undeniable.

>i just keep shitposting.

>Because 32 trillion dollars of untaxed or lowly taxed money from the rich tax dodging being held in offshore accounts mean "only having enough medicine to save one child". 10/10, got me buckling over.

but that is completely irellevant, aussie. even if there is only one ill kid, and i have enough medicine for that kid (ergo all) and i choose not to save it, it still isnt murder. its a shame and, from my viewpoint, morally wrong, but it isnt murder. you seem to be unable to comprehend that.

>Oh this might work in one case, or a few or a few thousand or a few hundred thousand, but what about everyone else. Not everyone has marketable talents or education. When you look at this from the standpoint of pure individualism, it make sense. But 7 billion people on the earth means individualism is worth nothing compared to the greater group. Your statement was flawed from the very beginning.

how is it rich peoples obligation to take care of those who are unable to take care of themselves? or even if it isnt (it isnt) how is it the rich peoples fault?

>And who determines law? The voter who has been indoctrinated by the media at large to support one side or another? Or the kingmakers who donate millions to political camps decide policy direction and get tax cuts and other benefits? Which do you think?

the state determines the law. much like no one forces you to do much, no one forces politicians to take money. if they do, and change the country for worse because of it, its a fault of the state, not those who have disposable income.

>The fact that they are rich in the first place immediately makes them greedy, to a certain extent. Greedy isn't a fixed describable term.

stupidty. if i am born into wealth, that does not make me greedy, to a certain extent. if i strike oil and sell it for a profit, it does not make me greedy, and so on.

>Also anyone who has significant wealth immediately has significant power. In this world, those who hold the money hold the power. It is in fact objectively undeniable.

i dont know what kind of shithole you live in, but more often than not, getting pulled over and whipping out your wallet to make the problems go away doesnt work. people with connections hold power, people with power have power. wealth merely makes getting to that point easier.

Isn't buying their products similar donating to the government?You'd be donating to the roads, and the police, and shit.

Okay let me rephrase your argument to see if I understood it. The OP asked why republicans are okay with tax cuts for rich people but higher taxes for themselves.
Your counterargument was that liberals would also bitch and moan if poor people got a tax cut of 10% and rich people 3% while rich people generally have more options avoiding taxation in the first place. Being satisfied with the fact that liberals can't stop bitching and moaning regardless of how little tax cuts the rich get you can justify that the middle class won't experience any tax cuts at all and due to the inevitable budget cuts the poor and the middle class would have to pay even more costs for living (worse educational systen, worse infrastructure etc)

You do know what a donation is, right?

>its a shame and, from my viewpoint, morally wrong, but it isnt murder. you seem to be unable to comprehend that.

Oh but it is. The person dies as a direct result of your action or inaction. There's no way around it.

>how is it rich peoples obligation to take care of those who are unable to take care of themselves? or even if it isnt (it isnt) how is it the rich peoples fault?

How did they get rich in the first place? You're either A): born to riches and choose to keep the money gained from exploitation or B) Get rich yourself through the coercion of those you "employ". Either way, people are poor and coerced into doing shit they don't want to do as a direct result of your actions or inactions. You don't make your wealth without those who labour below you. Without them, you or anyone else with money is nothing.

>the state determines the law. much like no one forces you to do much, no one forces politicians to take money. if they do, and change the country for worse because of it, its a fault of the state, not those who have disposable income.

No excess money? No purchasing of power. It starts and ends with the capital/medium.

>if i strike oil and sell it for a profit, it does not make me greedy, and so on.

If you did it all yourself. But if you strike oil, how do you get it out of the ground? And whom do you sell it to? Those who have no option but to take the arrangement.

Oh look, someone with nothing useful to add and you claim that I shitpost? Interesting logic there pal.

Surely posting the tax plan of the man everyone on the right hates and wishes was dead will prove the right wrong somehow.

They do you faggot, people engage in a customer relationship with corporations by choice. Only when the government is involved does that change, and only because the government steals your money.

They're providing a product or service, same as the government. Some don't and the gubment has to bail them out.

>The person dies as a direct result of your action or inaction.

Thats not what murder is.

>You don't make your wealth without those who labour below you.

Sure, but they don't get rich without you either. Capitalists also need the workers or they starve. Are they being exploited?

>If you did it all yourself. But if you strike oil, how do you get it out of the ground? And whom do you sell it to? Those who have no option but to take the arrangement.

And the guy with all the oil isn't forced to take whatever the drillers demand? He has no option but to take whatever he can.

I consider it civil to not correct the fool who considers himself an expert. There's so much asinine statements I was trying to parse, its very difficult determining where to begin.

>Someone doesn't interject to stop a death by giving their property is murder
This is some cockamamie bullshit right here. Your entire premise is based on this bullshit:

>there's too many people for individualism

This is a jew argument. I am an individual. I am not "group" member. I do not require people to take care of me because I realize I am responsible for myself. Leveraging the state to take away personal responsibility by demonizing individuals who take responsibility is childish.

Some of my neighbors right now probably struggle for food, meanwhile my family is well fed. Should I go around my neighborhood giving people food? The starving man is just as responsible for finding food as I am. Its not my fault they decided to be a degenerate and blame society for their failure to take responsibility.

Your whole argument seems to revolve around this childish selfish idea that we owe you stuff, and you deserve to be equals in society just because you breath. You're equals because you are productive. If you are unproductive you are a drain upon society, and actually doing harm. I'm sorry, you have to do certain things in life and I think you were ill prepared for the future in some way.

This is not meant to be uncivil, nor insulting just an objective observation to your thoughtful contributions. I will trust you're not shit posting and actually posting your thoughts. I don't have enough time to recommend some reading so I apologize.

>Oh this might work in one case, or a few or a few thousand or a few hundred thousand, but what about everyone else. Not everyone has marketable talents or education. When you look at this from the standpoint of pure individualism, it make sense. But 7 billion people on the earth means individualism is worth nothing compared to the greater group. Your statement was flawed from the very beginning. If you have no talent then you deserve to starve period.

>Thats not what murder is.

Yes, that is exactly what murder is. The Death of a human being as the result of a person's action/inaction. That is exactly, with no exaggerations, what "murder" is.

>Sure, but they don't get rich without you either. Capitalists also need the workers or they starve. Are they being exploited?

By that logic I suppose that is true, to a certain extent. But exploitation of one person by another requires power by the one being coercive. The difference being: the wealthy need the workers, the workers don't need the wealthy if the wealth is fairly distributed.

>And the guy with all the oil isn't forced to take whatever the drillers demand? He has no option but to take whatever he can

Exactly. But the equivalency becomes unequivalent as soon as the individual has the capital to reject the proposal and not die. The worker doesn't have that opportunity.

>This is a jew argument. I am an individual. I am not "group" member.

Oh I see, a special snowflake, how nice.

> I do not require people to take care of me because I realize I am responsible for myself.

That kind of thinking leaves humanity flailing around pre-stoneage.

>Some of my neighbors right now probably struggle for food, meanwhile my family is well fed. Should I go around my neighborhood giving people food? The starving man is just as responsible for finding food as I am. Its not my fault they decided to be a degenerate and blame society for their failure to take responsibility.

That would be correct if indeed it was the case. Which in most/many, it is not. Your assumptions are based upon anecdotal evidence of a limited evidence pool. But you can try again if you'd like.

I'll finish this post in the following one, because I have run out of room yet again.

>Your whole argument seems to revolve around this childish selfish idea that we owe you stuff, and you deserve to be equals in society just because you breath. You're equals because you are productive. If you are unproductive you are a drain upon society, and actually doing harm. I'm sorry, you have to do certain things in life and I think you were ill prepared for the future in some way.

This is often the argument of one who seems to think that one of limited wealth is who I am critical of here. I am not. Those who work away, perhaps as much, perhaps more, perhaps less, are productive. The fact that the economy grows is evidence of that. Do you make millions every year? Do you have a whole host of people working below you from who you drain wealth? If not, then my arguments are not against you.

If you are as you say in your post, then you are self-sufficient and not contributing to the system at all. You are neither the exploiter nor the exploited. But I doubt that is the case. By which all your examples are rendered unfit by reality.

Perhaps "By which all your examples are rendered unfit by reality." was not what I meant. Rather:
By which all your examples are rendered unfit for the argument.

Or you could just tie government income to consumption instead of production. You know, like how they tax gasoline to pay for those LOL ROADS socialists mindlessly parrot as talking points

But no, lets continue to subsidize consumption and tax production. Reddit told me thats better anyways (you) faggots

>Oh but it is. The person dies as a direct result of your action or inaction. There's no way around it.
Murder is killing a person with the intent of killing it.

The intent of withholding an action required to save someone when you have the ability to is equivalent.

And thus we have argued ourselves to one point. The point with the least moral question. I will take my leave, consider yourself the winner of this "argument" if you wish.

Have a good one.

>How did they get rich in the first place? You're either A): born to riches and choose to keep the money gained from exploitation or B) Get rich yourself through the coercion of those you "employ".
This is how poor and middle class people think rich people get rich. If you're born rich, you will become poor if you have the habits of a poor person. Lottery winners, NBA players, etc. all get rich quick and poor quick because of bad habits. You could enrich yourself by exploiting workers of a business you own as much as you can, but to do that you would have to get to the point where you have a successful business, and you are unlikely to get that far if you have a win-lose attitude of running things. Win-lose tends to lead to short term gains only.

To get rich, you have to avoid traps like payday loans, credit cards, car leases, make wise investments like a good education, stocks and bonds, and live frugally. If you can't do that yourself you can achieve success by making your children successful. Or you could be the kike that runs the payday loan shop and market to niggers nonstop.

You should check IDs before posting. This post was not even a reply to the OP. The post was about the fact that liberals have been using this meme about most money from cutting taxes would go to the rich and completely ignore any tax cuts for the middle or lower class.

>while rich people generally have more options avoiding taxation in the first place
They wouldn't avoid taxes if they weren't ridiculously high. If taxes were lower would it be profitable to pay for costly tax shelters? The profit would be negligible. And your main point isn't even fucking true because deductions are used by every class and are a form of tax avoidance. There's a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.

>the inevitable budget cuts the poor and the middle class would have to pay even more costs for living
That's not even true, the taxes don't go just to schools and infrastructure, they go to bureaucracies that siphon money. And these people would probably get more quality education and quality infrastructure if their money went to private industries. It's amazing how socialists like to praise how socialism gave us public law enforcement, public schools, and public roads, but in the same instance cry about how police are irresponsible and unaccountable, how our schools are failing our children, and how our infrastructure is crumbling. It's because these are socialized institutions, putting more money in it will not fix the problem.

> Your whole argument seems to revolve around the idea that,'Only work can set you free', and that social care was only created because,'muh feelings' and not the very real fear of revolution if things get too bad under existing systems.
You need to do your history before you start jibbering on about the, 'undeserving poor' and rich people deserve stuff.

It's amazing how socialists like to praise how socialism gave us public law enforcement, public schools, and public roads, but in the same instance cry about how police are >irresponsible and unaccountable, how our schools are failing our children, and how our infrastructure is crumbling. It's because these are socialized institutions, putting more money in it will not fix the problem.

Interesting that all that infrastructure was put in place under social democrats and has crumbled more and more post- Reagan/Thatcher.

Reagan is shit, what's your point.

My point is that, every president and Prime Minister from Reagan/Thatcher has been shit...

The powerful control the public services in such a way as to balance the scales against the poor... This is why as long as lobbyists and multimillion dollar useless campaigns exist we will remain in the dark ages...

>Americucks still buy into 'trickle down economics'
top kek