Will De Blasio "tax the hell" out of the super rich"?

[Punk]

On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 03:23:22 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>  On Thursday, August 1, 2019, 07:05:17 PM PDT, Punk <punks at tfwno.gf> wrote:
>  
>  
>  On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 23:26:42 +0000 (UTC)
> jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> > 
> >> [enough of  of De Blasio's nonsense]
> 
> >    what nonsense are you referring to? 
>  >   The libertarian analysis here is pretty clear. Tax 'cuts' are actually subsidies for corporations. Those 'tax cuts' are paid by ordinary taxpayers and inflation - inflation being  a general tax that american scum collect from dollar users all over the world - something enabled by the fact that  the dollar is used worlwide because of US military threats and war crimes. 
> 
> That analysis is certainly not "libertarian", but statist:  


	My analysis is libertarian =) 


> It would be held by people who believe that government should exist, 

	Not at all. I am simply stating a fact. 'Tax cuts' for big business are a subsidy for big business. I never said government should exist. I obviously think it shouldn't exist. 


> that taxes should be collected and spent by governments, not the people who earned the money to pay those taxes.Now, maybe there are indeed people who (falsely) call themselves "libertarians" who believe that way:  A lot has happened in the last 20 years.  But I am confident in calling them "not libertarian" at all.  


	I'm confident in pointing out that the way you seem to be siding  with big business that are corrupt to the core is not libertarian at all. 



> Traditionally, libertarians say "taxation is theft".  Libertarians, at least the minarchist ones, may believe in a small amount of government, but it is far less than that which currently exists.  

	side note : traditionally the vast majority of people who posed as libertarians wanted 'limited goverment' and so 'limited taxation' or 'limited theft'...which is of course still theft. 


> 
>  >   Also, the 'super rich' are the number one enemy of freedom, the number one supporters of the state, and the "corp" in "govcorp". The only thing they deserve is death. AP should take care of them ASAP. 
> 

> Merely having money, a lot of it, does not automatically make anyone 'the enemy'.  Rather, it is how they obtained that money, the influence they exerted, perhaps by and through government, that's the problem.   


	And in the real world we live in, ruled by CORPORATISM, the rich obtained their money thanks to the government. This is the ABC of libertarianism. If you don't believe me I suggest you look at the evidence : 

	here, 17 TRILLIONS of stolen money FOR corporations paid by the whole fucking world.

	https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/07/14/the-big-bank-bailout/

	here, warren buffett thanking the US government and explainig how the US economy is a house of cards propped by the government. 

	https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/opinion/17buffett.html

	You're welcome Jim. 


> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> >> Apparently, it does not occur to De Blasio that if my AP (Assassination Politics,  https://cryptome.org/ap.htm   ) idea were implemented, it would probably only take a cumulative donation of about $1 million to see him "predicted" dead.
> 
> 
> >    Why should ppl want to kill him? Or are you saying that the 'super rich' will? I don't know what else de blasio did, but last time I checked free speech is a fundamental personal right. If your system will get ppl killed for their opinions, then your system is...flawed. 
> 
> Those people who believe "taxation is theft", classic libertarians, certainly wouldn't want a continuation of today's system of taxation theft. 


	That's true regarding 'true' libertarians, i.e. anarchists. Your advocates of 'limited government' are criminals who support taxation (theft...)



>  You apparently call what de Blasio is doing "free speech", but when a POLITICIAN speaks like that, and tries to get government to continue to rob people and to even increase that robbery, I call that "theft", or at least "attempted theft".

	oh wait, that blasio guy is the mayor of new york. I didn't know him (and I regret knowing his name) Now, of course, I do agree with you that he deserved death by AP, ASAP. 

	(still as a side note, even advocating for any sort of crime IS free speech)




> >> Yes, America certainly has a problem with taxation.  But the main problem is that taxation exists.  
> 
> >    That's right. Another big problem is that the funds stolen by taxation go FROM the poor to the 'super rich'.
> 
> Then THAT is another problem which ought to be solved.  I have the solution.   Government should not be in the "business" of assisting people to collect wealth, but instead by acting in a neutral fashion.  

	Government acting in a neutral fashion? Clearly that is NOT a libertarian concept. It should be self-evident that the criminals who call themselves the government cannot act in a neutral way, pretty much by definition. 
	
	Now, in a real free market, there's NO government and therefore there are NO 'super rich' since the only way to become 'super rich' is by DESTROYING the free market. Like for instance using governmetn granted privileges like 'intelectual property'. 

	
> 
> 
> >>And, that government seems to exist to hand out favors to people, 
>     
> 
>  >   you mean, the corporations de blasio mentioned?
> 
> Corporations act in the ways they do because the government allows them to do so.  

	Haha =) The people who hide behind the legal corporate fiction act in the way they do because they are CRIMINALS. So THEY are to blame as much as the govt that 'allows' them to be criminals. In reality both the people who hide behind the corporate fiction and the people who hide behind the state fiction are 50/50 partners in crime. 

	Notice how according to lefties poor government is 'corrupted' by money while according to right wingers (like the rand cunt), 'poor big business' are the victims of government. The libertarian view and correct view is that they both are partners in crime. 


>   
> 
> 
> >>taxing a huge fraction of the GDP, wasting $700 billion + on "defense", which could be provided by 100x less money with an AP-type system.
> >> 
> > >                                 Jim Bell
> 
> 
> 
> I notice that you didn't disagree with this part of my analysis.    


	That part was correct =)