More On Taxes & Individual Liberties [AntiBullshitMan]

[donnyforte2]

Cherry picking your taxes??... you might as well fucking privatize everything.

[theDukeOfEmerald]

If you against it or not, it doesn't matter, I choose to drive a big car, I choose to smoke, I choose to drink etc... I pay tax on those 'luxuries', but 'Income-tax' is theft.... good vid man... full heartly agree ;)

[lefty6584]

Why have a house if you have no art? Why even live?

[liebarg]

stfu  taxes suck

[MrRandomDood]

Were you born in Serbia? You do speak pretty fluidly but there is a little bit of accent present. I'm just wondering... Can you speak Serbian?

[AntiBullshitMan]

Yeah I was born in Serbia and moved to Canada when I was 10, so I do speak & understand Serbian.

I just find it really hard to express myself in political/philosophical debates when it comes to the Serbian language. Serbian grammar is more complicated as well. It gets quite frustrating sometimes when I visit Serbia and lose easy debates since hardly anyone over there is capable of having the debate in English.

[IntellectualRubbish]

You turned down land in the glorious country of Serbia? TRAITOR!! Now I can't let you in on our super secret plan to conquer the world...

Sry i had to:)

[AntiBullshitMan]

Well now that I've been informed about the master plan to conquer the world stemming from Serbia, I'll be booking the next flight over.

Kostunica 3:16

[oojamaflipper]

i dun a vid. should be up in about an hour.

[tersse]

this is more crap from a mind that just wont stop worrying at a bone allready devoid of meat, ban tax, who would pay for the voteing papers to be printed and delivered to polling stations you dumb ass, the state wold be bankrupt, and the country in civil war as there would be no services like electricity or water, its mot just people and private company's that pay and run services, think about what your saying before you say it. it would be anarchy for real.

[AntiBullshitMan]

""ban tax""

A gross oversimplification of the 8 minute video. Your entire post has nothing to do with what's being contemplated here. You really are incapable of grasping any argument not laced in black & white, liberal vs. conservative type role playing.

I find it beyond hilarious that you said "think about what your saying before you say it" as you yourself are undoubtedly the king of all knee-jerk reactions.

[tersse]

i was commenting on your idea that tax in america is illegal, and doing away with it, its an absurd idea , you then went on to say then ppl could vote on the new kind of tax to replace it or not, who pays for the vote is all i was bringing up, as the state normaly pays for it who , with a bancrupt state pays for the vote, i dont think you thought this idea out is all im saying.

[memonk11]

Here we go again. I these tax dodger arguments have been refutted time and time again in court. This video is on the level of the 9-11 truther crap. But the main thing that AntiBullshitMan does not understand is: we live in a republic, not a democracy I suggest he read The Gettysburg address if he really needs an explanation of all that implies. I'll explain.....

[memonk11]

What Lincoln was refering to with "government by the people, for the people" was NOT "hey everybody, lets see a show of hands" about every issue. But rather that everyday people could agree to establish a government, (the republic) snd they would abide by it's laws of that government they formed, Like, not following laws you disagree with, If you disagree, you elect officials that have the ability to change those laws, You don't "secede" or take your marbles and say you're not plating anymore.

[memonk11]

And what he was implying was that Such a government once formed, would not implode under it's own weight. Any way, I HATE TAXES. Who doesn't. But taxes are the fee we pay to live in a civilisation. Also I's so glad that AntiBullshitMan is qualified to tell the rest of us of what is essential, or not. He's be perfect as a dictator, or Taliban elder, or one of the "gang of Four" Or anyone of the extremist who throughout history felt they alone can tell people how they should live.

[AntiBullshitMan]

What do any of these 3 posts have to do with the fact that only 27 states voted for the income tax, instead of the required 36? Don't equate it to 9/11 truth just because you can't refute the plain numbers.

I do want the income tax passed, but I want it passed properly.

"dictator, or Taliban elder"

Talk about fanatical exaggeration. All this because I pointed out that the income tax wasn't passed properly & that a society can function without everyone being forced to fund fine arts. Amazing.

[memonk11]

Nope, all this because you have this idea that any one person can determine what is essential. And somehow, if each individual just would just pick and choose, the world would be anything less than chaos. Let me give you ans example. In America, we had segrgation of races. If it was left to a popular vote, we might still HAVE segregation. A republic is the best system to guard against the potential tyrany of the majority.

[memonk11]

AND the amendment for Income tax WAS ratified. Because some nutjib say it was "impropery" done that makes it so? You Have cherry picked one person's argument against tax. I'll say it again. Cases on the unconstitutionality of income tax come to courtson a regular basis. AND are dismissed on a regular basis. the is long legal precedence, meaning these cases have been aregued in court time and time again. Yje "unconstitutional" boneheads have lost every time.

[memonk11]

And the constitution says that the federal government can "impose and collect tax" . - Yeah, sure sounds like income tax is unconstitutional. AGAIN: I hate taxes, who doesn't. I wish we lived in some magical fairy tale universe where such things are not needed. But we live in the real world . From your logic, I shouldn't pay any taxes that go to schools. I'm done with my education. Nothing for health care either. I'm healthy right now. I should just pick what I THINK is essential.

[memonk11]

Are you capable of seing how stupid that logic is? How self centered? How a civilisation could not function in such a way? Any, done comenting on this issue. You remind me of an old friend that wound up on conservative radio. He was a great guy. the type of person who would actually give his life to save someone else. But sometimes he would say somthing so stupid you felt compelled to reply. He got off on throwing bombs, and the meyhem it created. Oh well. I'm done.

[DoNotGod]

I see this as a pretty useless distraction... should we posthumously unelect Abraham Lincoln... lots of fraud ... simple fact, The Supreme Court defines what the Constitution says, and the Supreme Court has validated the income tax... argument over. Do you think if it was put to a public vote abolishing the income tax would get more than 20% of the vote? ..if you Do, you are really dumb...& I would argue if you inform the public, regarding who will make up the difference you're down to 5%.

[AntiBullshitMan]

Unelect Lincoln? A bit of a slippery slope analogy, don't you think?

20%... I hope you're right, but the truth of the matter is that plenty of Middle America surveys have been conducted suggesting the number could be much higher. That's how stupid these people are, and until the tax is passed properly, it's their stupid choice to make.

I am disappointed by this type of casual willingness to sweep the issue under the rug. It's intellectually dishonest.

[echo29x]

Well it serves to make the point (sort of) that the passage of a law (or the election of a president) is not the deciding factor in the legitimacy of that law or person.

[DoNotGod]

this is just a bullshit truther type subject... and in the context of current unequal voting rights, and fraudulent presidents this is a shameful waste of time. there is no public outcry, both the Congress and the Senate are satisfied... pitifully few representatives are getting elected on this issue... and The Supreme Court has established the law... add the fact that there's is absolutely no reasonable prospect that a revote would change anything and you got just a big pile of Bullshit man.

[jedimasterbooboo]

ArtificialCleverAi is freaking me out. I'm wary.

[DoNotGod]

had to block it today... I guess its CPU fried... gone all blue screen wacky.

[Grindermetalhead]

Did you say you're about to inherit some land in Serbia?

[AntiBullshitMan]

I'm in line to, yes. But I will disinherit myself out of principle. Either that or sell the property and do something constructive with the money (not just for myself).

[Grindermetalhead]

I'm asking because I'm from Serbia. :)

[billpasdmf]

And, again I say that the collective individuals as a society may choose to contribute to these things as they will ad nauseum. We shouldn't all HAVE to pay for them.

And sure lots of waste. (How's you're insurance company's stock looking?)

Now defense..........

One question: How do you think the insurance and art the Chinese will you to have will be?

[billpasdmf]

*allow you to have

[billpasdmf]

"id prefer to hire 3. the artistic/creative & educated guy"

Not to seem rude but this comment is bollocks.

1. Artistic/creative seems to constitute the same person. So, you've only describe 2, not 3.

2. While I may have been vague (I guess) when I said educated. I felt it was fairly clear that I was referring to one educated in that particular (essential) field.

Now if you wanna argue that we're dealing w/ an educated architect who is also creative....

Then that's just 1 guy now, isn't it?

[oojamaflipper]

@billpasdmf not bollocks. you laid a choice on the table between a pro and a con artist. in this Nth degree example universe we seem to be occupying here, that pro would have no artistic or creative tendecies what so ever, since it's not important according to your reasoning.

our education systems at the grade school level cannot be segregated in terms of funding in this way. and the expensive post grad art courses are not funded by anon tax payers but by mommy and daddy. so no, not bollocks.

[oojamaflipper]

jeez louise.. are you really arguing for a system that allows people to opt out of their tax dollars going to art classes? how the chuff would you even begin to do that? even if it was a good idea. which it's not. the amount of money that could be directly attributed to art classes and their ilk would be miniscule compared to the amount of our tax money being pissed up the wall on things like munitions/wars, bail outs, benefit fraud, i could go on..

[AntiBullshitMan]

Jeez louise, you are is being stunningly myopic again. Change takes place all the time. How I do begin doing that? I both begin & finish by simply making an argument in support of it. If I get a majority behind it, well then it gets voted in, doesn't it. No science to it.

''even if it was a good idea. which it's not''

Here you present your subjective opinion as fact. Whether you personally find art valuable is irrelevant to the non-necessity of art as it pertains to a functional society.

[oojamaflipper]

it's not that i see it as important. it IS important.

do you think those builders who you are so grateful to would have been able to do a thing without an architect? they are artists of a kind, and some architecture is just drenched in an artistic creative process.

[AntiBullshitMan]

No, it's just you seeing it as important. For example, if I gave 100 civilized people an option of living in shitty nature but with music, or in a clean maintained city but without music, 99 out of those 100 will take the the city.

Attempting to draw an equal line of merit between industrial arts and fine arts reeks of fanaticism. My HS Drama teacher tried to pull this all the time. She was the butt of everyone's joke, teachers and students alike.

[oojamaflipper]

what a lame scenario.. those people in the woods would build a city. those people in the city would create music.

and how the frig do u know 99 people would choose that grey, featureless, creativity-unfunded complex anyway? subjective opinion as fact? hmm?

i didn't say there was an equal line of merit. the creative process permeates almost every part of society in some way. to suggest that it is unnecessary is fail, imo.

[billpasdmf]

There is a major difference between an architect or engineer mapping out a blue print and someone like Van Gogh 'expressing his creativity.'

One of these is functional and necessary and the other pure ego stimulus.

While I agree life without art would pretty much suck....

Life without shelter would be much more difficult.

[AntiBullshitMan]

It's not lame. It's a hyperbole designed to get straight to the bone of the equation.

Pointing out how the city folk can just as well create their own music only strengthens my position, since nothing's stopping them from doing so, regardless of me not being forced to subsidize it.

If an unequal line of merit exists, then the obligation all tax payers have to equally subsidize such a line is unfair & irrational.

Music permeating through society is an inevitability, not a society requirement.

[billpasdmf]

And speaking as a musician, I would say that those that feel it is important are certainly welcome to make whatever donations are necessary to keep such programs active. By no means should such things be mandated, being as they are non-essential.

[oojamaflipper]

"Pointing out how the city folk can just as well create their own music only strengthens my position, since nothing's stopping them from doing so, regardless of me not being forced to subsidize it."

works for the shop-class-less troglodites in the forest too. so no, it doesn't strengthen your argument.

the point is it's just a really bad suggestion for how to manage tax dollars more effectively because like i said, there are hundreds of other more substantial ways to do it.

[billpasdmf]

The 'shop-class-less troglodites' will be building 5-star resorts then? No.

What's to stop the big bad wolf from blowing their houses of straw sticks down?

Third little piggy had shop class and then became a mason.

[oojamaflipper]

@billpasdmf and the music class-less cityfolk wont be writin any symphonies any time soon either.

[billpasdmf]

And everything I've learned about music, I've learned outside of a classroom. So have many others.

Now if you wanted to hire an architect....

1. Do you hire the educated one?

2. Or the do-it-yourself guy?

[oojamaflipper]

@billpasdmf id prefer to hire 3. the artistic/creative & educated guy

let's get back on point..

do you think creativity should not be endorsed by the people of a society?

[AntiBullshitMan]

Your question has nothing to do with my proposal.

Based on what you were arguing against here, your question should actually read: Do you think that EQUAL state imposed funding of ALL forms creativity should HAVE to be financially endorsed by the people of a society?

[oojamaflipper]

'nothing' to do with it? really?

your suggestion for what the question should have been sounds like somethin confedsocialist would come out with, and it is bogus. we cannot divide tax funding for education up like that. how many people do you think would choose to not pay towards it? a fuck load. no doubt. so then do we stop those people from listening to music or looking at art or reading books, (would u also say there is an argument for not paying towards literature classes? dats art too man)

[AntiBullshitMan]

Last reply to you here: I'm not a fortune teller, so your question of how many people would opt not to fund these will go unanswered. But this is irrelevant to the essentialist principle of it anyway. Your reverence for art allows you to rationalize a conclusion where the ends justify the means, while I find it ethically deplorable.

billpasdmf also pointed out how one can still be an artist without the state holding their hand along of the way. Classroom often has little to do with genuine art.

[billpasdmf]

I believe it should be endorsed by those who are so inclined to do so.

Don't get the wrong idea, I love art. I feel it's very important to me. However, it falls far short of being essential. Hence, not everyone should have to pay for it.

Supposing there was total collapse(an 'armageddon' of sorts). Yea, eventually the new tribals will start beating on drum again, but you damn well better have...

1. Figured out how to make shelter.

2. Figured out how to get food.

See? Essential.

[echo29x]

@billpasdmf

But if it has something to offer society, and we have the means to provide it as well as necessities, then why not?

[oojamaflipper]

@billpasdmf liek, howmagawd, you have to take it to armageddon to win the argument that i was never having in the first place (that artistic creativity is secondary to other forms of skill or endevour)

if u give people the option to not contribute towards it, how the fudge are u gonna verify that they do not benefit from it regardless?

sigh.... the only point i was tryin to make was that it is a lame idea for how to address the very real problem of tax dollars being used wastefully.

stop wars.

[AntiBullshitMan]

Stop wars is something that everyone is already on board with, so no real need to make a video about that.

''''billpasdmf liek, howmagawd''''

No need for that. He gave you an excellent argument and remained respectful to you in the process.

[oojamaflipper]

@AntiBullshitMan sorry, it's been a slog of a commenting spree.

i wanted to write a list of things that could massively affect the use of tax dollars but i reached my 500 and couldnt be arsed to write a two parter, hence simply 'stop wars'

but now ive had to explain that and post another comment.

and pickin on two words of flippancy in a comment of pure argument? that kinda sounds like Garys detractors.

[AntiBullshitMan]

Just saw this comment now.

I have to address your unfair detractor analogy. The fundamental difference being that G throws insults as a way of combating his opponents' smugness and character assassination attempts, neither of which were committed here by the person you argued with. If G or anyone else committed the 1st strike in my comment section, I'd call them on it as well.

[oojamaflipper]

i didn't 'throw an insult'. i used two bullshit nonwords in an expression of fatigue.

[AntiBullshitMan]

It was patronizing as hell. Worse than throwing an actual insult. Especially now that you're making it out to be fatigue and nothing else.

Accusing me of doing what G's detractors do was uncalled for. They have malicious intent and will spin any scenario to fit their agenda. If you honestly see no difference in what I did here, then to hell with you.

[oojamaflipper]

patronizing? dont agree sorry. the similarity is obvious.. highlighting a tiny percentage of irrelevence in amongst a large amount of proper argument.

[echo29x]

Also, there is the underlying notion in your video that there is something advantageous to society if individuals are able to amass greater wealth more freely. Is that an accurate interpretation?

[AntiBullshitMan]

Not in general... only when it comes to aspects of freedom-to-wealth which don't necessarily collide with what's in the best interest of most people in the society, and fairness.

I'm typically all about advocating for the prevention of extreme consolidation of wealth, just take a look at this comment section alone.

[echo29x]

Of course, I'm not talking strictly about the consolidation of wealth to any extreme. But given a fair environment as you propose, I assume wealth still be gain either as a wage laborer or as a producer/employer, or will the worker/owner relationship be replaced?

[echo29x]

I'd just like to point out first of all that the US constitution is itself an illegal document by that standard, and that current law does not entirely (or mostly) derive its legitimacy from the process of its legislation.

Furthermore, to say that infrastructure is valuable to society while art is not begs the question as to how one determines value to the society. If it has anything to do with the standard of living of its citizens, then art could certainly be argued to have value.

[AntiBullshitMan]

Art is subjective. We all enjoy it in some form or another, but the wheels of society would not stop turning if this indulgence was taken away from us (which it wouldn't on any large scale anyway, since we'd all just subsidize our own personal preferences).

Infrastructure however, is essential to any civilized society in the 21st century.

The 2 simply are not on some balanced scale.

[echo29x]

I feel that if everyone subsidized their own personal preference to the extreme, radio stations might play worse music than they already do.

The reason I feel that government (or society) should encourage art independent of content is that the profit motive for art is most often not conducive to better art.

[AntiBullshitMan]

But should things like trying to get radio stations to play better music be a valid enough reason to burden everyone, including for instance, the deaf, to support music classes for minors?

Plus most independent or indie musicians acquired their skills away from high school band classes anyway.

[echo29x]

Well, again you have the problems of assessing how people are affected by various aspects of society. A society with better music encourages artistic growth in many media not limited to music. In that way a deaf person would benefit from more music education.

So if you accept that subsidizing art can allow for better art (in removing profit motives for art), which can benefit society as a whole, you simply have to ask how much you are willing to give up in order to allow for that improvement.

[AntiBullshitMan]

''A society with better music encourages artistic growth in many media not limited to music''

A bit too slippery slope of a point to warrant for an outright mandatory equal tax imposition as far as those subjects go.

[echo29x]

I think you might misunderstand me. My point is that anything that benefits society - mind you, not necessarily all the member of that society directly - ends up creating a better society and thus a better environment in which future individual benefit are more readily attainable.

In other words, it is possible to separate the good of the society from the direct benefit of the individuals in that society.

[ArtificialCleverenAI]

hmmmm.selfishsounding-abit?aca­i.hd:y.

[AntiBullshitMan]

Selfish sounding? No. If I that were the case I'd currently be scoring some nice interest on my savings instead of allowing them to lose their value. All out of principle.

Also, the video is about taxes. That and honesty vs. political agendas.

Have you a point to make?

[ArtificialCleverenAI]

yes: FUCK YOU, TWATTARD.

h.

[ZOMGitsCriss]

regarding inheritance I am not against it. I think that if you have a property you should have the right to give it to whoever you want. However, I think inheritance should be proportionally taxed to the blood. If you have inherited a little bit of land or 100K dollars you should pay a small tax for it. But the tax would increase with the amount you inherit. As an example, If you inherit 1 million dollars for instance, you should be taxed 50% for it.

[AntiBullshitMan]

I should have mentioned that I'm only opposed to 3rd, 4th etc generation inheritance, and as long as it exceeds (est.) a million per person and (est.) 10 or 20+ million per estate.

As for 1st & 2nd generation inheritance, I agree, tax only.

But yeah I'm still not accepting the property offer in Serbia, seeing as how I had fuck all to do with it, aside from arbitrary blood relation.

[ZOMGitsCriss]

I see this kinda like finding 100 dollars on the road and instead of leaving it there, you take it ...and you can either use it or, if you don't feel good about using it yourself, you can give it to some homeless person.

Even if you dont theoretically deserve that land, it doesnt mean you cant make the best of it. You may turn out to be a good landlord and make a prosper contribution to society with it. Or, if you dont want to use it yourself, you can put it to a good cause. imo ..etc

[AntiBullshitMan]

100 bucks, sure. But I'm talking about the top 8,000 households in the US that own more than the bottom 70 million workers combined, in both assets and savings. Most of these people do not put it to any kind of good use. They have an expectation that their surplus should, by it's own nature, make them more profit, ad infinitum.

In short, having no mechanism to control the consolidation of wealth by birth right & interest, can't lead to anywhere but ''monarchy lite''.

[ZOMGitsCriss]

*totally agrees with his last comment*

[ZOMGitsCriss]

Maybe the "finding 100 dollars" wasn't the best analogy since someone would miss that money. Replace that with, let's say, you standing in line at the grocery shop and being rewarded with 100 dollars cos you were 100th customer that day. Or something like that ... basically getting some money without you doing anything for it

[hitssquad]

@ABM Wouldn't a 3rd gen inheritor simultaneously be a 1st generation inheritor? How could the government differentiate between 1st and 3rd gen inheritors?

[AntiBullshitMan]

They'd differentiate based on recorded history, assuming we're operating under the premise that this is a civilized society where things of this nature are kept on record. So obviously if my great grandfather started a business, left it for my grandfather, who then left it to my father, there would no confusion as to what # of gen inheritor that would make me, if I were in line to inherit. So yeah, simple records of ownership.

But why divert from the actual topic of the video again?

[hitssquad]

@ABM Most people inherit money, not businesses. People start businesses and sell them. Venture capitalists don't start businesses, but they still make money.

Even moderate seigniorage would quickly wipe out family fortunes, which is what we see in practice. The fact is that incompetent heirs quickly lose their money. Competent heirs, on the other hand, produce new value for their societies, and thus stay rich.

[hitssquad]

@ABM "But why divert from the actual topic of the video again?"

This video has nothing to do with taxation?

[ORVX]

@ZOMGitsCriss 50%, that is crazy. people spend their entire lives building something, why should they have to give 1/2 to the government because they die, especially when the whole time the government spent that spent the whole time taking from them while they were building it. On top of this your statement conveys' that somehow the government incompetents can spend your money more productively then you can.

[ORVX]

@ORVX FYI in US it Estate Tax, a Federal Tax and the ESTATE is taxed after your Unified credit. Inheritance tax is taxed to recipient and is a State tax different in every state. Regardless EVEN if you want to make the argument that the government spends the money better then the people BIG GOVERNMENT

[ORVX]

@ORVX Complex ownership issues is what "RICH" use to keep wealth & others parish. Fancy accountants make money off backs of people who produce becuase learned how to work the system. BIG GOV CREATES loope holes & it becomes crap shoot, trying to mange. What is incentive for farmer to build his business if kids have to sell most(maybe when land values r down) just to pay to pay taxes, then farm is so small that economies of scale no longer work.A million $ farm is NOTHING. A Combine cost $250k

[ZOMGitsCriss]

@ORVX "that is crazy. people spend their entire lives building something, why should they have to give 1/2 to the government because they die"

Yes 50%. Because 500K $ is more than enough for anyone to inherit, especially when not doing anything for it. And I don't necessarily say the rest should go to the government. Some system could be made for you to have some control as to where that money goes, for instance if you want 30% of the tax to go to some charities you support

[ORVX]

@ZOMGitsCriss Chirs read the rest of my follow up post, at 3k an Acre and 250k for a Cominbe a farm can not sustain it's self, at 500k. THIS IS WHY the family farm has died and now more an more farm land is owned by corporations. In the end people r just going(WASTE) $ toLEGALLY pass to where they want it to to. I have wokred in farmining and fincnace/ and NON profit my whole adult life and I can tell you 501C is almost as burearacy ridden as the gov BECCAUSE the gov has hands in.

[ArtificialCleverenAI]

variety is essential. it's easy to kill one person over and over if they're all the same in different bodies. Gary and Bonbons come in the "spaceship". Maybe you too. if you learn to draw big wet cunts.acai.