Thread has been deleted
Last comment
taxing rich = communism?
 | 
Malaysia Suno[t] 
tf is this bs. Since when did taxing rich became communism and not taxing rich is okay lol. Lenin and Stalin gave too much PTSD to western civilization. You have to realize these guys are not the first to base this model. Many historic civilization did it and it flourished without chaining million down a bloodbath. Not every tax to the rich become marxist. Get over yourself, many great nations stood before you.
2020-09-16 18:44
Topics are hidden when running Sport mode.
This is not NA we don't call that communism
2020-09-16 18:45
#30
 | 
Andorra chill_sage
'if you gain u must multiply' typical
2020-09-16 19:20
+1, the guy is a typical demagogue and his point is a typical strawman, no one seriously says that big taxes = communism but expected from a 35+ yo nolifer who said once that palestinian terrorist attacks on civilian jews are justified. i dont think its reasonable to hope to have a good argument from this kind of people
2020-09-18 17:22
Trump and his minions think it is.
2020-09-19 11:39
they are racists so no one cares what they tihnk
2020-09-19 22:04
Due to the US predominance, "no one seriously says that" they don't "care what they tihnk"
2020-09-20 00:44
But this kind of thinking has actual deep down communist roots.
2020-09-18 17:47
name checks out
2020-09-19 15:21
lol, exactly.
2020-09-18 20:51
#2
 | 
Europe TheDankLord
Noone says rich people shouldn't pay taxes. It would be unfair though if they were to pay higher taxes. As a percentage. Or atleast in my book.
2020-09-16 18:47
facts
2020-09-16 18:57
Nah. USA went to shit after they made the rich almost tax free. From no national debt to being almost most indebt country of the world in 50 years shows that all of the right wing financial stuff is pure propaganda to fool idiots into taking national debt into billionaires pockets.
2020-09-17 15:08
"almost most indebt country of the world" lol they are the most in debt country
2020-09-17 18:06
#94
 | 
United States RnipB3
You do realize that 50% of tax payers in the US pay zero income tax, right? Corporations may get breaks but individual wealthy taxpayers no doubt pay plenty in taxes.
2020-09-17 18:30
its not almost tax free, it'is 37% at the highest level above roughly $500k per year
2020-09-17 20:08
Only if your stupid enough to get that as income. Billionaires are rich, there would pretty much 0 problems if rich people only made that 500k a year and paid taxes for it. You seem to be quite clueless on how the world works now where corporations and their multibillion owners have the real power over elected officials.
2020-09-18 14:48
+1
2020-09-18 17:11
Billionaires are rich for a reason. And there is no way you just snapped your fingers and that money fell into your hands. Being a billionaire means that you created a shit ton of jobs, and something that people need. There would be far more problems, if there were no billionaires.
2020-09-19 17:03
Lol. Most inherit their billions.
2020-09-19 18:42
that's bullshit, it's funny how you pull ''facts'' out of your ass. only about 10% inherit their billions.
2020-09-19 19:00
For now. There has been national debt made billionaires only for about 40-50years so the first gen is still alive.
2020-09-19 19:03
and from who's ass did you pull that out of? honestly speaking, robin hood movies and stories should be +18.
2020-09-19 19:24
Lol. From the guy who thinks its better for a countrys economy to have a billionaire who hides his income in tax havens than to have 1000 millionaires who spend their income and pay taxes while spending it :D You are like a communist, you believe pretty much any shit your oppressors tell you.
2020-09-19 19:45
i didn't say that, now you're just trying to put words in my mouth. or you're just too stupid to actually understand.
2020-09-19 19:49
It would be fair. If you have so much money you can live your whole life like a king and your kids and their kids too, you should give more to help others that have barely enough to live
2020-09-17 17:40
no
2020-09-17 18:58
#244
 | 
Belgium lil_vodka
tired of turks?
2020-09-18 21:44
so you say taxes needs to be exactly same for poor and rich? how does that work? poor can't pay 20% taxes from his/her salary in the same way the rich person can. money means more to the poor people than to the rich people if we use necessary expenses as a variables. imagine having 1000€/month salary and paying 200 euros in taxes on it and having 15 000€/month salary and paying 3000 euros in taxes on it. there is a big difference
2020-09-17 18:19
I agree, illiterate peasents should not be judged the same way as doctors 👌😎
2020-09-17 18:28
well its true that in economic state of mind not all of us are equal to each others
2020-09-17 18:35
Everyone should go nearly untaxed, both rich and poor. 3% tax for everyone, 1 single universal tax, VAT is my favorite option. No free shit for anyone. Super low cost of living for everyone, super active and deregulated markets. Just let freedom comeback to the west people...or at the very least...to the Latin world. How it should be.
2020-09-17 18:29
Now that's a great opinion. +1
2020-09-17 18:51
so you want to minimize the size of the state/government and let the people try to survive without any kind of supervision, guidance etc. for example, in the absence of a competition and consumer agency that monitors the market, what would happen? quality of goods would be as low as possible since competition would not allow quality to be completely crap because the business would die (aka consumers would buy from someone else). Corporations could have price cartels which forces consumers to pay high prices because there is no cheapers options.
2020-09-17 18:57
i think that would be extreme capitalism where a small group of big corporation owners are ruling everything and having all the power
2020-09-17 18:58
"so you want to minimize the size of the state/government and let the people try to survive without any kind of supervision, guidance etc." Latin Europeans and Latin Americans...and let's be honest... Brits, don't fucking need "supervision" or "guidance" how dare you say something so disrespectful and dehumanizing? we are the best people in this planet and we'd do great in such system, as we did in the past when we actually lived by such system, i will agree with you in that some countries do first need some universal development because they are extremely behind in all areas of living standars, like most of Afrika, some parts of Asia (mainly the northern provinces of China) and half of the middle east, but Westerners??? Not at all, or at least Latins , you'd be surprised how easy to manage our civic life is. "for example, in the absence of a competition and consumer agency that monitors the market" I will remain respectful because i believe you're coming in with genuine curiosity, but this proposition is absurd my friend, in order for the market to have proper competence you dont CREATE a government agency that will "make sure competence exists" , such agency is financed by raising taxes...which weakens the private sector, the private enterprise creation, jobs creation, etc. You maximize competence by deregulating and de-taxing the market in which EVERYONE will partake in. You first need to understand that whatever tax or regulation you think you'll impose on the rich, will actually hit the poor and the middle class, firstly and worstly the poor, later on, the middle class.
2020-09-17 19:23
money = greed power = greed more money = more greed more power = more greed something like Night-watchman state could work if people would not be greedy and would not only drive their own purposes.
2020-09-17 19:33
Greed is not something bad, greed is simply the aspiration to have more, and by having a strong legal framework that's easy to manage, each individual can only achieve their aspirations through being functional members of society. Not to mention that literally every single living breathing being is driven by self-interest, none of these things are bad or evil, you've just been told as much, but if you would've properly challenged your highschool and university professors on it, you would've made them look REALLY bad in front of the class, nobody can defend such horrible ideas.
2020-09-17 19:37
yeah greed is great and necessary thing if u want to achieve but greed can also bring exploitation when you forget humanity and exploit others to gain yourself
2020-09-17 19:42
Indeed, but we already have made decisions that kids shouldn't work and slavery is illegal. So any objective argument for "exploitation" is out of the window. But besides, there is no more dangerous greed than a politician who rises to power by promising to control the greed of the greedy capitalists who are exploiting people, in fact, that's basically the recepy for self destruction.
2020-09-17 19:57
"but we already have made decisions that kids shouldn't work and slavery is illegal. So any objective argument for "exploitation" is out of the window." No, it is not. You know in what countries child labour and slavery happen? In ones with underdeveloped legal enforcement systems. Honestly, the whole ancap bullshit is retarded
2020-09-17 20:10
Sorry, im strictly talking about the Latin World, Greece and MAYBE...UK. I assume you're talking about India and a couple sub-saharan nations, how are these countries Anarcho-capitalist???? Or Libertarian??? or even Liberal??? most of them are communist dictatorships, and India is not a Liberal Economy. "Honestly, the whole ancap bullshit is retarded" Of course you'd say that, you're Russian, to me...the whole Soviet Bullshit is retarded, And also current Russia of course. The countries that still have slavery and child labour on i have never advocated to go Minarchist, and i don't think we should make them abide by our moral standars neither, when you intervene in a foreign country there's always unforeseen consequences...one'd think you people should know a thing or two about that...but i guess some things never change.
2020-09-17 20:17
Haha, actually, the communist/socialist bs is not really popular in Russia either. For me, both ancaps and communists are dull, so don't assume I'm a communist after looking at my flag, please.
2020-09-17 20:21
"Haha, actually, the communist/socialist bs is not really popular in Russia either" I know this to be false. I don't think you're a communist, i can tell you're a huge statist social democracy advocate. I align with Anarcho-Capitalism mostly but im not a dogmatic ideolog, i also support Monarchism just as much, and also Minarchism (though with some scepticism). Anything further towards statism than that is something i don't want for the Latin World or Greece, i already know its gonna fail in any Western or Semi Western country but they're free to try, i don't give a shit about their countries. Argentina Brasil France and Italy should get out of this mindset, that's my biggest concern and my mission. Russia??? You keep redistributing and shit, 17 million square kilometers of sub sub sub developed third worldism with 2 pretty cities. Im never gonna try to convince you otherwise bud.
2020-09-17 20:29
The only communists in Russia are some fucking braindead stalinists, which are kinda out of consideration since they don't even know shit about their "ideology". Current Russia is just a borderline militarist kleptocraty (I have nothing against the "militarist" part tho *wink-wink*) I also think that Russian people don't need democracy. Our mentality is just not compatible with actual democratic regimes, I'm realistic about that, so your "socdem" guess is kinda wrong. We need an actual authocraty, cruel, but working. I kinda share your sympathy towards monarchy, oh boy, doesn't "Russian Empire" sound beautiful? xD
2020-09-17 20:53
Russian Empire or Russian Kingdom does certainly sound more elegant than Russian Federation. The problem is that this would be extremely cruel to the entire sovereignty, you probably know this better than me, but as you move East in Russia, the inhabitants of the Federate member states become more pro-Federalism (sub-division autonomy), i can't see them being on board with an ultra centralized regime. You have to be honest with yourself and admit that a large portion of the Russian sub-divisions should get their independence, it'd be a win win for both ends. Western Russia in Europe's area would probably do amazing with a Minarchist Monarchy in my opinion. But would still do much better than now with a fascist redistributist Monarchy. 11.5K GDP Per Capita you're worse than South America, life can't be very good outside of Moscow or St. Petersburg man...
2020-09-17 21:01
As a person born and raised in one of the "national republics" I must tell, that the "federalism" is just federalism on paper in Russia. They even made separatist talks extremist in the new Constitution, so... yeah. Also, not all cities outside Saint-Petersburg or Moscow are wasteland. I don't live in SPB, nor in Moscow, but I'm the child of a rather upper-class family, so take my statement with a pinch of salt. I have no complaints about infrastructure tho. I've been to Europe, not impressed, was kinda dumbfounded at the lack of card terminals and street lights. UPD: fyi, not Russian Kingdom, but Russian Tsardom
2020-09-17 21:15
so who will pay for infrastructure, police, fire departments? XD There is is literally not a single country that works or would work like this XD maybe kongo
2020-09-17 19:00
"so who will pay for infrastructure, police, fire departments? XD" Those services would be extremely easy to finance with such taxation believe it or not, in fact, those are the only services i included in my hypotetical budget, is called Minarchy and it's EXTREMELY cheap, i bet you'd lose your shit if you knew where most of the government money goes... "There is is literally not a single country that works or would work like this XD maybe kongo" Argentina, U.S and UK worked exactly like this when they were at their best.
2020-09-17 19:04
Oh, what about the military? Argentina is a shithole, When was America at their best? Wild west? They had high taxes in the 20th century so don't even fucking start.
2020-09-17 19:08
Security, justice and some very small intervention in infrastructure. Security obviously includes the military little buddy. Argentina is a shithole today because since 1943 we started implementing the shitty system you advocate for. U.S was at its best between 1890 and 1913, but it was still very good until 1928 as far as economic prospects go. Brasil wasn't quite the Minarchy but they got pretty close and they were also absolutely first world, they made the British empire apologize to them. Here's some photos (we were doing infinitely better than the rest of the world) hltv.org/forums/threads/2356160/beautifu..
2020-09-17 19:11
you cant even argue with something which worked 100 years ago since world economy, society structures etc. was so different what we have nowadays. because everything changes we need to evolve
2020-09-17 19:24
its like northern welfare state which was great thing after the world wars for rebuilding but today it is too expensive and impossible to run but government nor most of the people can't see it or at least can't admit it
2020-09-17 19:29
I agree with the premise on a humanitarian realm, however economics is largely mathematic and objective. 2+2 was 4 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 500 years ago. Venezuela went under an hyperinflation un the 2010's for printing too much money to finance its gigantic expenditure. So did Argentina in the 1980's. So did Greece and China in the 1940's. So did Germany in the 1920's. So did Roma in 280 (+1700 years ago) I agree that we should evolve but some things never change, economics happen to be one of these.
2020-09-17 19:34
economics is like all about the mathematics but it is evolving too because economists are finding new things, creating new theories and so on. thats why we have Classical economics, Marxian economics, Keynesian economics..
2020-09-17 19:40
No not really, the entire world runs on a mostly Keynesian system today (and has done so for the last 70 years), but the countries in which the economy pushes people upwards the hardest are the ones in which there's less keynesianism and more Economic Freedom, case in point: Europe is the slowest growing region in the planet while Asia is the fastest growing region in the world. I know where you're coming from , because this world order has been in place since the end of WW2, so you know that you and your parents think that the NORMAL and RIGHT thing is to have "free" this "free" that and "make the rich pay their fair share" , the problem is that somewhere up in your family tree when you compare how your great great great great grandpa lived and progressed in the late 1800's - 1900's to how your parents progressed in the last 20 years, your Granny crealy got the massive upperhand. [i assume you're from Europe or North America]
2020-09-17 19:55
The reason why Keynesian system is still so remarkable must have something to do with the size of the public sectors. Keynesian system wouldn't work if the public sector ain't big enough and on the other hand big public sector wouldn't be useful without Keynesian. Question why Keynesian is still so remarkable? It's simple. It was the one which raised the world around 1930, especially USA. People tend to lean towards the proven to work systems. In my opinion Keynesian has seen it's best days because governments are not using it right. Public sectors are not making saves during the boom conditions nor they are spending money to elevate the economy when bear markets. It is like reverse Keynesian. But it's yet to be seen which kind of system is the next savior and since i am actually from Europe, I wish to see what will save Europe. :D But we cannot go back, like literally we cannot go back from European Union, although there is no way hell Europe can become federation even though for sure there is people who sees that as the end game for European Union era.
2020-09-18 07:36
No, Keynesian economics was the downfall of U.S (and the west in general) , real purchasing power since the New Deal has only gotten worse and worse. You are putting the cart before the horse, people didn't want keynesianism, Keynesianism told politicians that they're NOT the ones at fault of economic struggles of each nation and in fact, if people gave politicians more power to increase the size of government, things would be better. The progress that you saw afterwards was what we had, where you are wrong is in assuming that had it not been for such horrible economic policy, said progress wouldn't have occured...this is absurd, when we observe the transformation between 1700's and 1800's and then late 1800's to early 1900's , it becomes clear that Keynesianism substantially held back progress, if at least Argentina and UK would've stayed free countries with free economies, progress would've been much MUCH higher than it was in our shitty reality in which the entire western hemisphere went full retard. I will admit, U.S was always going to go down this path, migratory patterns sealed their fate. As for Europe, you're wrong and you admit so at the end of your reply. The continental European view is just U.S American propaganda which you've been raised under, "you're all white Europeans so you're all like...the same xd" this is nonsense. "Europe" can't be saved, because some parts of Europe's salvation will inevitably be another part of Europe's doom, because you have vastly diverse and different cultures and worldviews, trying to mesh it all together is a terrible mistake, reason for which the European Union is a failure and will be abolished in the next 2 decades. You say you can't "go back" from the Union?? So Europe doesn't get to have Nation States???? But the American continent does? Afrika does? Asia does??? Besides you're telling me you'd like a Federation, which would essentially be an exit from the Union, and an introduction of a new Nation State [which would be terribly disfunctional]. I know you don't agree with any of this, but just entertain my crazy, crazy ideas in your head...and consider that all you were teached in your public schools might've been a load of horseshit...wouldn't it make history suddenly clearer? doesn't it tickle you a bit???
2020-09-18 07:58
i get what you mean about the free market of the US and UK but at their peaks they had VERY high tax rates, for almost everyone, the US in the 50s had tax rates of over 80% in some cases, same with the UK, so your idea that they had no taxes and had minimal government is just a lie, as someone from the UK i know it's not true when you say at our peak it was all free market and no taxes and all fun, it was good for the country but for most people it was shit, monopolies running every industry and super high taxes.
2020-09-19 15:57
What are you even talking about??? What do you mean by "their peaks" ??? U.S' economy objectively peaked in 1909, which is precisely why many congressmen tried to open the fed but couldn't until Woodrow Wilson got to power. Not to mention, NOBODY PAID THOSE TAXES, those post WW2 taxes nobody paid, this is nonsense, and all the other taxes besides income were much easier to deduct, pension contribution was probably the hardest one to evade, which is why they raised it to 1.5% on the payroll. No taxes???? Where did i ever say that??? Besides, the timeframe i used for reference has always been 1880-1930. You're full of shit. "it was good for the country but for most people it was shit" You didn't even think this through as you wrote it, wtf are you even trying to say you fucking retard hahahahahahaha
2020-09-19 16:09
#87
 | 
Finland ThroneB
If everyone were to pay the same percentage in income taxes then for the people with lower income the taxes they pay might be what costs them comfortable living conditions. But if let's say someone who makes millions gets taxed the same amount, they don't lose anything, their quality of life stays the same. Yeah they won't be able to purchase their 5 mansion before retiring but who cares. That's why it makes sense to ease the burden on people with low income and compensate with progressive taxation.
2020-09-17 18:24
Thats a bs story politicians says to the people. Do you really thing that it's the rich who pays a lot of taxes ? In Portugal you pay 33% if you earn 2000€/month and 40% if you earn 4000€/month. How the fuck is 2000€ or 4000€ qualified as rich ? However, if you are really rich and earn around 20 000€/month you "only" pay 50%. The "progressive taxation" as a form of social justice is just a way to tax the middle class, not the rich.
2020-09-17 19:01
That cant be right 33% for 2k/month. In finland you pay like 15% at 2k 30% at 4k and so on. And we are called for having high taxes.
2020-09-17 19:15
Yeah well, we have a full socialist government supported by the far-left. And it is right, a variable percentage (22% for 2000€) on the the salary plus a fixed percentage of 11% for social security. And this is just the taxes you pay on your salary. Imagine all the others combined ;) The wheight of taxes on our GDP is a all-time high and yet our government is getting more votes in the poles. Don't you love stupid people ?
2020-09-17 19:23
I mean thats just wrong.. I was checking out 15% tax for 0-8000e yearly income, what the fuck is that. Thats not socialism thats stealing from the poor. I mean strong taxes and free education and health care is in my opinion good thing, but not like this.
2020-09-17 19:35
In my last job I earned around 850€ per month and payed 21,5% each month... If I earned the minimum wage (650€) I would pay 11% (the fixed tax for social security) 200€ more on my salary implied more 10% in taxes... That's why I say, the story of the "progressive taxation" is to fool the people. It's not to tax the real rich, it's to destroy the middle class...
2020-09-17 19:44
I mean what you have is not progressive taxation, its equally shit for everybody.
2020-09-17 20:24
good point, thats pretty much it.
2020-09-19 15:45
#181
 | 
Finland ThroneB
To me it sounds like you proved my point but came to a different conclusion.
2020-09-17 22:24
"That's why it makes sense to ease the burden on people with low income and compensate with progressive taxation" It does make sense in the theory. Communism also makes sense in theory. But in reality doesn't work
2020-09-17 23:18
#208
 | 
Finland ThroneB
If they taxed everyone the same amount it would mean that lower incomes must be taxed more compared to now or welfare takes a hit. Is there an alternative you think would work better? I don't think there's an alternative to progressive taxation that levels income disparities while keeping all the upsides.
2020-09-18 07:53
Country where I live in, people who earns 3000€/month or more, are paying a bit more than 70% of all the tax incomes. People who earn 4200-8400€/month pay alone more than 30% of all the tax incomes. Around 10% of the people in my country belongs to this group. 10% of all the people are paying around 35% of all the tax incomes. The group which pays a bit more than 70% of all the tax incomes is closely to 50% of the population in this country.
2020-09-18 07:50
Imagine welfare state where 50% of people pays only around 30% of the states tax incomes. That means 50% of the people are earning under 3000€/month. And the best part, wait for it, wait for it. From the 50% who earns under 3000€/month, 31% earns under 1250€/month! And I can promise you that earning 1250€/month in this country does not give you satisfied living conditions. I mean you can have a rental apartment from somewhere, most common rent is around 500-800€/month, you can buy some cheap food so you won't starve but that's about it. Personally I cannot see how you can still call this place a welfare state even there is public health care, police, fire department etc. etc. Leftists people are all about "How we look outside" thinking and the actually inside doesn't matter.
2020-09-18 08:03
Oh one more! One leftist politician actually said this in Twitter couple days ago. "How is the tax revenue any different from the employed person and the person who lives with the subsidies?" It still amuses me how someone can even ask that out loud :D
2020-09-18 08:08
-1 a billionaire will never have any problem paying for their life, even if you tax them 90% the story wouldnt be the same for the poorer among us
2020-09-17 18:29
Yes, but is it fair to say that you should give your labor for free while I don't give it for free ? Is your labor so worthless that you should give some of it for free ? And is my labor so important that I should get paid for all of it ?
2020-09-17 19:14
I imagine part of his contract in Navi Junior allows him to stand in for the main team, maybe he gets paid, idk, but it's probably well worth his time either way
2020-09-17 19:21
wait what
2020-09-17 19:57
i thought he was responding to a different comment i made ;-;
2020-09-18 23:34
True but who cares? Is it the rich person's fault that the poor person is poor?
2020-09-18 21:56
It's not their fault, but they still benefit from an unequal system Meaning they have an obligation to provide more then those who have less.
2020-09-18 23:33
Well they already do provide more though, that's why the tax is a percentage of one's income
2020-09-19 11:35
Before billionaires were a thing, most countries in EU and USA had no national debt. They are useless to society and only bring poverty.
2020-09-19 16:03
Not going to reply the same thing to all of you economic degenerates. Who are the people making big money? Usually they don't just magically get it. They invest. Own factories, shops etc... And stagnation is the death of any investor. These people you want to tax more give jobs to dozens or hunderds of other people. You are effectively hurting the lower class aswell.
2020-09-17 18:51
Thank god you are irrelevant
2020-09-17 19:02
Says Indian
2020-09-17 20:41
You hiding your flag, and even if you received 1st world edu your brain remained unevolved so who wasted his life? Haha
2020-09-17 20:42
Not really, I just think that Europe should unite as a federation. I'm Czech if that gives you anything. Atleast my unevolved brain manages to write in proper english. But that's kinda a selling point of India. And leftists. :)))
2020-09-17 20:47
My English is pretty decent for the fact that it's the 3rd language that I learnt. Seems like you are angry that leftists generally have higher IQ points than right wingers
2020-09-17 20:49
Care to quote that or did you just pull it our of your ass? Because it seems like you're just another leftist with Inferiority complex, trying really hard to prove s your superiority.
2020-09-17 22:31
dude do you live inside caves? Did you not watch the famous brain analysis of right and left wingers by CNN? They showed the brain tests they did on folks with different political views
2020-09-17 22:32
Ah, I CNN. I see. Openly left wing medium claims something to blow some leftist horns. Imagine my shock. Care to quote an actually independent study?
2020-09-17 22:40
Ah I see you live in denial. Just because CNN reports actual situation while criticizing your fav politicians, its a "left wing medium" now hahah
2020-09-17 22:42
i2.wp.com/www.nationalreview.com/wp-cont.. :)))))) allsides.com/news-source/cnn-media-bias Keep dreaming about CNN being an unbiased medium. :))))
2020-09-18 00:25
Oh so what's "unbiased journalism"? Fox News? Idiot. See even your website claims they have high amount of independent research. They just lean a bit to left, which is ok because each media house has a leaning, but they spit straight facts
2020-09-18 06:22
Oh come on, did I say that? Did I? Stop putting words in my mouth... are you out of arguments that you have to fight me as a strawman? Leaning left is fine. Sure buddy. :)) Left leaning but mostly independent journalism. :)))) ok bud
2020-09-18 14:25
its not unfair since there is a diminishing returns on gaining money. a 10% tax is a shit ton to someone who earns 100 euro but its nothing to someone who earns 1000000. the person with 900,000 can still afford everything they want but the guy on 90 euro now has to budget even more intensely.
2020-09-18 14:27
+1
2020-09-18 17:47
+1
2020-09-19 16:10
Taxation is theft
2020-09-16 18:48
Also mandatory if you want to have a functioning society.
2020-09-16 19:05
*government Society doesn’t need government to function, but government needs society to function
2020-09-16 19:09
2020-09-16 19:10
Government tells us we can’t shoot these people despite government being what they’re protesting. Limited government = maximum liberty
2020-09-16 19:13
Shooting someone = maximum liberty. Nice logic fat burger. I love how fat burgers are so immoral and don't know anything about freedom
2020-09-17 17:03
I always find it funny how big the European inferiority mindset on hltv is. Imagine unironically thinking it’s immoral to shoot someone who is destroying your property or attempting to harm you.
2020-09-17 17:53
Are you sure its europeans? i wouldnt mind if you or the police shot them all
2020-09-17 18:09
Not all Europeans of course. It’s mainly people with Eu or German flags. Both those have the most beta userbases on hltv
2020-09-17 18:14
germans are the most brainwashed people in europe and eu flag is well no one cares about that flag
2020-09-17 19:50
By your definition Somalia is the freeest and best functioning country, maybe with Afghanistan second.
2020-09-17 17:58
Ah yes, I will gaslight the argument while ignoring the obvious fact that both countries I’ve listed are governed by terrorists and flawed religious theories. Terrorists aren’t humans (or at least don’t deserve human rights). I thought dk education was good? Are you an immigrant or something?
2020-09-17 18:09
OK, my reply was a bit rushed. How can dk education be good with big government and high taxes? Which countries do you consider model societies?
2020-09-17 18:14
There aren’t any. Of course some are doing better than others though. For example, I don’t think Scandinavian countries are sustainable with their current systems. They encourage people to rely too much on the gov which means that in the case of severe economic trauma they’ll be the ones that fail first. Of course there are laws in Scandinavian countries I wish were present throughout the world though. For example, if I’m not mistaken, every Scandinavian country has a stand your ground law. I fully support a national stand your ground law in the US. Dk education is good now because the centralization of the government happened relatively recently and has been ramping up spending unsustainably. Therefore it’s still very modern and hasn’t had to adapt to many changes under this system (this is also the benefit of having a large private school system alongside a large public system). Idk if I’ve explained it enough, but it’s kinda rough thoroughly explaining stuff on a phone.
2020-09-17 18:23
Thanks for taking the time. Most scandinavians gladly pay their taxes because of what they get in return. Central negotiations between employers and employees enables establishing nationwide rules like paid maternity leave (6 months with full pay + 6 months with unemployment benefits (roughly half pay) to be divided between the parents). Laws ensure that pregnant women are not fired for being pregnant. The centralisation isn´t a recent thing, it´s pre-WW2 (where it resembled FDR in USA), and has been steadily reduced since roughly 1980. This reduction has led to higher efficiency, but also lower quality. Private schools, hospitals and TV has been on the rise since then, but still only represents a small fraction of the market. A law states, that "the money follows the user". So If the State allocates 10000$ per year for a kid to go to school, then that kid can take that money and go to a private school. Same with hospitals and retirement homes. So the government is not at war with private enterprise. They just make sure it´s a fair competition. Highly sustainable and robust system, that can pick things up in troubled times (or "severe economic trauma") like the present. Like paying 80% of wages for workers in threatened areas, like hotels and restaurants, keeping most of them from going out of business. Great trust in authorities (because they are the least corrupt countries in the world) and free health care has been immense help in dealing with covid. No stories about people afraid of going to hospital. And covid testing is one of the highest in the world. 2½ million tested in a 5.8 mill population. ½% tested per day in Denmark. Infrastructure better prepared for a greener future and in a much better condition than US. A lot of low hanging fruits, that haven´t been picked yet, like road pricing and other user payments.
2020-09-17 19:00
"They'll fail first", Did you know like 40%-45% of renters in America are in risk to get evicted right now? You literally have no idea what you're talking about, Jesus Christ. Maybe some free education wouldn't do you any harm XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
2020-09-17 19:05
Somalia was a hardcore communist failed state before it fell down to multiple high profile assassinations that unleashed civil wars with a bunch of fucking belligerents. This doesn't mean that governing less ALWAYS = Governing better. But it certainly proves that governing more ALWAYS = lead to governing worse. Your premise is that Somalia is some Libertarian paradise founded by some crazy anarcho capitalists who love austrian economics, when in reality, Somalia is an anarchy because the communist dictatorship that was in place before it got taken down by other wannabe-communist-dictators was simply too tyranical. If anything, it hurts the system YOU advocate for more than his.
2020-09-17 18:34
There is a point for everyone where Safety and prosperity is more important the liberty
2020-09-17 18:30
#32
 | 
Andorra chill_sage
EU could put head behind the as.s
2020-09-16 19:22
What kind of society doesn't need a government? Like the amish and indian tribes?
2020-09-16 19:43
You need to be able to differentiate between government and leadership. A lack of governance doesn’t mean a lack of leadership and a presence of leadership doesn’t mean the presence of governance. There have been plenty of societies without governing bodies.
2020-09-16 19:47
Any 100 million people societies?
2020-09-16 20:38
Would it be relevant?
2020-09-17 18:22
Yes. 100 people society is very possible without a government but imagine 100 million people society. Literally utopistic (just like communism KEK).
2020-09-17 18:47
You said "Yes" and then you said "No"
2020-09-17 21:17
Good job
2020-09-17 22:26
government its just another name for leadership
2020-09-17 17:24
its reassuring to see rightards are just as fucking crazy as the leftards in the US 👌😎
2020-09-17 18:29
anarchism at the current level of technology will probably always result in a power vacuum or a strongman taking over
2020-09-17 18:31
+1
2020-09-17 18:17
sure, let's leave it to the society to fund and build schools and prisons. i'm sure it'll work out.
2020-09-17 20:00
Lol how does society dont need government to fuction? Without the government and all other institues "society" would become fuckin anarchy. How is it so hard to understand that since first steps of humans into civilization there was always some kind of government or other kind of shit that ruled the society otherwise everyone would dance around the campfire raping and murdering eeach other around. Use your brain lmao.
2020-09-18 17:51
#38
 | 
India spiderCAKE
Ofc the guy from tax haven country letting corrupt people stash away stolen public money says that
2020-09-16 21:47
agreed
2020-09-17 18:03
Thank god you're irrelevant
2020-09-17 19:03
A poor person calling me irrelevant XD
2020-09-17 22:22
#4
Dosia | 
Russia Rapu
Dude, there were no taxes in the Soviet Union, there was a completely different economic model.
2020-09-16 18:49
xdddddddddddddddd
2020-09-16 19:12
#79
 | 
North America Swboy1010
I wonder how well that worked out lol.
2020-09-17 18:11
Sure but what if you claim the name “Marxist” and praise other communists. Put the “tax” aside. I’m speaking here for BERNIE and the BLM org owners. No one says taxing the rich is communism. It’s not even the definition, either you’re misrepresenting the opposite ideaology or you heard wrong
2020-09-16 18:50
#Bernie2024
2020-09-16 18:52
He won’t be alive in 2024
2020-09-16 19:10
#8
 | 
Yugoslavia seeeed
Its just a simple truth that the more taxes there are the more communist a nation is
2020-09-16 18:55
#9
 | 
Faroe Islands günT
"tax the rich" aka make them move their assets to other countries and lose out on tax revenue
2020-09-16 18:55
#SKATTEUPPROR
2020-09-16 18:57
#28
 | 
Faroe Islands günT
spik bram
2020-09-16 19:17
Based
2020-09-16 19:21
+1
2020-09-17 17:45
#80
 | 
North America Swboy1010
Basically what is happening in New York becuase that city is going to shit.
2020-09-17 18:12
expected from a blue state
2020-09-17 20:11
Honestly it's kind of ridiculous because the rich are already paying way more in taxes because they make way more money but they're also paying a waaaay higher percent of their income which is clearly unfair and it's scary to move from one income bracket to another because your taxes get fucked
2020-09-16 18:56
#18
 | 
Yugoslavia seeeed
The rich also get massive tax cuts and write off a shit ton of their income bc they donate it to charity. Not to mention that many of them do their best to not even pay any taxes. Also making 50mil and not 100 doesnt make you not be the top1% and you wont move to another income bracket
2020-09-16 19:04
#39
 | 
India spiderCAKE
+1
2020-09-16 21:49
High IQ people even donate to their own charity, all hail Bill Gates
2020-09-17 18:24
#89
 | 
Yugoslavia seeeed
Yep
2020-09-17 18:26
ur talking about income tax but there are other taxes where the poor pay more.
2020-09-17 10:00
#45
 | 
Finland Karri
like?
2020-09-17 15:03
Payroll tax and consumption tax.
2020-09-17 17:00
#101
 | 
United States RnipB3
Some consider these regressive taxes as the poorer you are the higher percentage of your income you spend on a sales (consumption) tax for instance. In reality though these taxes are flat, no one is paying a higher percentage on their actual consumption than anyone else.
2020-09-17 18:41
the difference its the effectiveness of the tax, a person who earns 100 and has a 10% tax suffers much more than a person who receives 100k with the same 10% tax
2020-09-17 17:30
#14
pm | 
France Choubada
No that's just normal
2020-09-16 18:58
#16
 | 
Sweden Mejtz
which?
2020-09-16 19:01
cringe leftist
2020-09-16 19:03
Its only a US syndrom... They have been indbreed to fear everything that can helped them if its called socialism. Without them actually understanding what it is. its what those in power use to keep the power and keep taking the wealth. and many americans eat it despite it makes their life worse, but they managed to turn it into a patroism thing. If you look at scandinavian nations they have it the perfect way. Strong free market, that unlike the US version is a free market and seperate from the state. healthy eco. Bassicly a strong capitalism system that form a fair social nation where both makes the other part stronger. They are more
2020-09-16 19:06
#52
 | 
Finland Karri
Scandinavian countries in fact do not have it perfectly. The rich are taxed way too much and that often results in outsourcing manufacturing or even moving whole businesses to countries with lower tax rates. The current social support system, free healthcare, schools etc etc simply are not sustainable and result in more and more national debt and the problem only gets worse as the birth rate is too low in every nordic country. It's simply not worth it to succeed in life here because you get analed with 60% income tax, then leftists wonder why people take advantage of offshore business entities to avoid taxes. I wouldnt call scandinavain markets "more free" than US markets, thats simply a retarded statement. This whole tax the rich to solve poverty premise is borderline autistic and every. single. human. being. with more than 2 braincells understands that the issue is not in fact so black and white and poverty is often a cultural issue and has nothing to do with social inequality. Please shut the fuck up and do research before you comment on complicated political topics
2020-09-17 15:11
No. if anything the rich are not taxed enough, supporting the lower classes lift their buying power, in return giving more money back to those that sell stuff. It matters less to the eco if a rich man can buy 5 cars instead of 4 contra a lower income person being able to buy more products. I know the rich often only see at things as what they gain or lose to what is infront of them. But take Covid. many rich people with big companies have called out how their money goes to help people with less. But here it was then turned around, the wealthcare and healthcare system those nation had now came in and saved those big companies. and kept them afloat. its goes both ways. and they help each other to function the best possible. if you give to much power to companies its no longer a free market and it just goes the other way as if the state have to much power. And that is what happens in the US, where companies run policies at the cost of lives and the people living in the nation. A free market is the market seperate from the state. so if the state has to much power it takes from the market and thus hurting both the market and the people If the market has to much power it takes away from the state and in turn hurt the people, land, nation nature so on. and that goes back to hurt the market. its a compromise, they make each other stronger, and the rich gain more by giving more.
2020-09-17 15:51
But if you tax the rich too much, they have too little incentive to work hard and earn a lot of money. So they need to be taxed an a percentage at which they still have the same incentive to work hard, but also shouldn’t be too low, so they can still support the lower classes.
2020-09-18 08:16
But they are not taxed to much. Just because they are taxed more do not mean its to much. When you earn a lot. and can buy 5 cars. it dont really matter if you give the "6" car away to help everything around you get better and in that way also improve your own life so to speak. And lets take Denmark, companies actually have better chance of succes in Denmark than the US. its very good to start companies and run them in Denmark, its secure, its safe and its proffitable.
2020-09-18 10:45
Do not bother with this guy, he's the definition of pseudo intellectualism, cardboard intellectual, very typical from European public humanities Universities. Everything you've said is true with one exception, Denmark actually is TECHNICALLY sustainable, they have been able to have taxes high enough to actually cover their expenses. countryeconomy.com/countries/denmark They're running a fiscal surplus of 3.70% Sustainable only means that the system can sustain itself without foreign aid (such as credit loans, which as you very well pointed, add external debt) , it doesn't actually mean that it's good or that it's socially desirable. But Scandinavian people are extremely collectivist and statist, they actually believe that the bigger the government = the more "democratic" and "equal" the nation is, so in the end they get what they deserve. What dissapointed me is that Finnish people, who fought off the soviet scumbags +70 years ago...would jump on board with the retardation of statist social democracy of the scandinavians. Im glad people like you are in Finland, even if you have no chance of winning, is good to see that you exist [you are the first one i've seen].
2020-09-17 18:55
#24
 | 
Armenia Yerevan
Taxing left is a leftist idea for sure but not communism?
2020-09-16 19:11
taxing anyone = theft
2020-09-16 19:14
#29
 | 
Brazil wololo10
Only in USA/Brasil that is considered communism, too much brain wash
2020-09-16 19:19
the problem here is that we have chained taxes that result in too much for everybody. the only way to put taxes up for rich is lowering the resultant taxes in the market flow
2020-09-16 22:02
or maybe people just have different perspectives, get over yourself
2020-09-17 15:10
#270
 | 
United Kingdom o_w_o
its not communism its just a retarded idea
2020-09-19 09:50
They are already being taxed.
2020-09-16 19:23
#34
 | 
Finland 0lter
lool everyone know taxing the rich is gay
2020-09-16 19:23
I think the problem isn't that people are against taxing anyone. The question is whether a rich person should pay a larger percentage of his/her income than a poorer person. Whether people are in favor of a flat tax rate for all or they want progressive taxation.
2020-09-17 10:04
#43
 | 
Finland Goble81
If there were no taxes then it would not automatically mean that people have more money in their bank account to spend on CSGO skins. In such a country how much it would cost to send your kids to school and universities? How much it would cost if you or your child needs a surgeon? Would you be driving on a tarmac roads or how much you should pay per month or per km in order to use those roads? But having no taxation and requiring private people and group of people or a local villages to fund their roads, bridges, hospitals on their own in rural areas would just pack people even more in few big cities. Or people should be ready to change their consumption habits and standard of living requirements. Don't know much about taxation system in Russia and pre-Russia communistic Soviet Union, but they definitely had some sort of taxation system and used it as a political tool. For example when they needed more babies they put heavy taxes on couples and families with no children or with only one child.
2020-09-17 10:26
Interesting +1
2020-09-17 15:07
I agree with you, people think that if they dont have taxes they would have more money but they forget that many basic things are paid with taxes, how expensive would be paying for protection ...
2020-09-17 17:38
just stop
2020-09-17 15:05
#47
ropz | 
Estonia k_k
ireland has left the chat
2020-09-17 15:07
you can try, but will end up paying the tax anyway. Rich people have a gazillion ways of passing down the tax burden to the lower classes.
2020-09-17 15:09
#53
arT | 
Brazil eumesmo
just dumbness. if you tax the richer, what is gonna happen? well, they are not going to simply reduce their profits. they are gonna to pay less for their workers, or overprice their products. it is not good for anyone.
2020-09-17 15:15
#269
 | 
United Kingdom o_w_o
there also just gonna fucking move as seen in the US when alot of those car companies just moved to third world countries where they werent taxed as much and it was alot cheaper
2020-09-19 09:49
yea man, people forget economy is about mathematics and not feelings.
2020-09-19 13:39
Since you created a comment off of your stupid comment and ignored my reply, i will simply link it here: hltv.org/forums/threads/2358281/poverty-..
2020-09-17 17:11
#99
 | 
Malaysia Suno[t]
I didn't ignore your reply, I just simply chose not to reply to it. Also i didn't make this thread because of your comment read the date and time.
2020-09-17 18:35
You are wrong.
2020-09-17 18:45
#58
 | 
Poland SebL
Ppl don't realize that Soviet propaganda is still affecting them. It has not ended by any meaning. Taxing rich ppl because they have money is clear communism honestly. They want to make all ppl the same with that. I hope the world will weak up from this shit. It's destroying our world.
2020-09-17 17:12
comunism =/ taxing, comunism its a division of jobs, in theory there is no one person richer than the other, higher tax to the rich is a way of controlling social difference, someone who earns a lot more money than someone else is much less affected by higher taxes, so by using taxes a government can increase revenue not only to keep the basics for the general population but also for improve the living conditions of the poorest population
2020-09-17 17:45
#66
 | 
Poland SebL
Poorest ppl should work to improve conditions of their live, it's not a goverment job to make their living condition better.
2020-09-17 17:47
the problem there is that it is extremely complicated for a person to get out of poverty on their own, people insist that if they try hard they can, but the reality is not so simple, depending on the country where you live to get the basics food, home, healthcare the person has to work during an abusive workload, and there is nothing left at the end of the month...you could argue that if she studied she could have a better job, but how will she study if she doesn't have the basics to survive, every now and then you see the story of a person who managed to change life, but those are the exceptions, and not rules, in general it is almost impossible for the population to change their living conditions on their own
2020-09-17 17:57
#146
 | 
Poland SebL
Overall it is possible. Before the socialists arived that's how world looked, and it worked.
2020-09-17 20:06
something is possible not to say that it happens with the constancy it should ... the world did not start in 1800, this vision of the capitalist market is not so old and before that, in the past people lived in community exchanging what they produced and giving those who could not. The way we live now only works for the richest, they keep getting richer and the poorer more poor, one day it will arrive in an unsustainable situation where revolutions will start to happen, as it did in the French revolution
2020-09-17 22:59
#221
 | 
Poland SebL
The revolution will for sure start, because socialism never works, and that has been proved for example in USSR, the communistic vision of the world has never worked, and it wouldn't be working if it would comeback either.
2020-09-18 16:27
ussr was comunism, not socialism. And socialism works. the countries with the highest human development index (HDI) are socialist, and are considered the best countries to live in And the revolution im talking about is the poor people killing the rich and taking the power.
2020-09-18 17:00
#223
 | 
Poland SebL
The best countries to live in for who lol? For ppl that don't work and hard working ppl work for them? Yeah great countries. And even if some kind of revolution happens, it will not affect the world much. This won't work out.
2020-09-18 17:09
for everyone, crime decreases, life expectancy increases, quality of life, fewer people living on the street, more specialized workers, for the business owner they start selling more because the population has more more money ... and saying that the person is poor because he does not work hard is a fallacy of a high level of stupidity that is useless to discuss and to assume that one person is richer than the other because he works harder is another stupidity, most of the rich are inherited
2020-09-18 17:42
#232
 | 
Poland SebL
They had to work hard before/they are working really hard now/their family is rich. That's the reason's why ppl are rich. And taking that away from them just because they are rich is communism.
2020-09-18 17:58
no, they didn’t have it, most of the wealth was created and maintained because a family has long-term possessions and market speculation, there is rarely a rich man who was created through real work ... people don’t get poor due to taxes ... now again, if you don't know the difference between a wealth-based government and a communist government, you need to study
2020-09-18 18:06
#234
 | 
Poland SebL
You are talking about communism, not a wealth-based goverment, you basically say that communism is a good thing and you would love it to comeback, if it didn't work previously why would it work this time? I don't understand what logic are you using.
2020-09-18 19:45
no, i'm talking about a system where the rich should be taxed more than the poorest people and this money be used to improve the living conditions of the poorest. this is a socialist government, the communist government is not like that, in the communist government everything belongs to the government, so there are no rich people or poor people,and it redistributes the way they feel it is necessary.
2020-09-18 20:49
#260
 | 
Poland SebL
Communism or socialism never worked and socialism isn't working atm, you can see it in EU, rich ppl are taxed more and what? If ppl don't work then they don't deserve to have better life condition.
2020-09-18 23:36
again...the countries with biggest hdi in the world its socialist, they have less crime, people live better, so for me, thats working...and stupid to think people dont work dont deserve a better life condition, because in the sistem we live working theres no jobs for everybody...think like this, if the company you work for or your father works closed because the owner got tired of messing with it decided to close the company and retire or for any other reason, do you think it is easy to find other work? and you don't deserve a minimum survival condition because you don't work? every country no matter how good he is has nearly 10% unemployed do you think they all just don't want to work?
2020-09-19 21:10
This is complete nonsense. People like you are the problem of Brasil.
2020-09-17 18:46
its the definition of communism, nothing belongs to people, everything belongs to the government, if you can't understand it you shouldn't even give your opinion
2020-09-17 19:40
You need to learn how to format your text.
2020-09-17 19:58
#63
 | 
Finland KieZuZ
Ironically, happiest people live in countries with high progressive taxation. If you dont want to pay your taxes to your country then feel free to move somewhere else. If you want to change your country, vote accordingly and just live with it. Why make a big fuzz about something you cannot do much about?
2020-09-17 17:42
#68
 | 
Yugoslavia m0rkTFH
Everyone should pay taxes based upon his earnings, which means rich more taxes, poor less taxes. That's a fair society. But anyone should know the solution to ANY problem of this world has already been invented and it's called socialism. Try socialism first, thank me later.
2020-09-17 17:54
Of course we should be taxed, but to say that we should be taxed anymore than the rest of the population is a very dangerous thing.
2020-09-17 17:55
it is not true, the rich being taxed more is a matter of reality of living conditions, think like this, a person who receives 100 of any money per month and suffers 10% of taxes, 10 that he is taxed is the difference of him eating at end of the month or not, for a person who receives 100k per month and suffers the same rate he pays 10k but the effect is totally different, maybe you would postpone buying a car for a month or a trip? ... decreasing the rate of more poor, and increasing the rate of the richest allows poorer people to have the basics for survival
2020-09-17 18:07
What you're saying makes sense except why is it the rich man's fault that the poor man's poor? And why is it the rich man's responsibility to pay for the poor man's better living conditions?
2020-09-18 22:06
I'm not saying it's the rich man's fault that the poor man is poor( well sometimes rich man's can be at fault for poverty, but thats another discussion )...but I will say that it is much easier for a rich man to remain rich than the poor to get out of poverty, we can use as an example what I said earlier, how much of this money is left for the rich man to invest and how much money is left for the poor man to invest after paying everything necessary for survival...when I say investing I'm even referring to the simple fact that you keep the money in a bank for example. basically because we live in society, a person is rich is not simply due to his work, it is because what he does has a greater return on the society in which he lives, an example would be a business owner who sells let's say shoes, if the society itself cannot buy shoes the company will suffer, and one way of ensuring that people have money to buy shoes is by ensuring that people do not work just to survive, with money they will be able to buy shoes...this can be said of any kind of thing you do as a job, if you are a teacher you need students to pay you to teach, doctor you need patients to have money to be treated. if people have room to grow economically, the more they will consume, the more companies will profit. And taxing the richest to use that money to help the poorest allows people to get out of the poverty line and thereby increase the number of consumers.
2020-09-18 23:33
Good points I suppose
2020-09-19 11:34
No its not. You thinking you shouldnt be taxed more is a very dangerous thing. Besides you are not even upper class if your net worth is below ~1.8million in the US
2020-09-17 21:00
True, I am not by definition 'upper class', but I am less than 25 years old and believe me when I say I have worked INCREDIBLY hard to get where I am and I can pretty much afford whatever I want. I was not born rich at all and I worked and worked to make my money, why should I be giving away more than my peers who simply did not work as hard as me?
2020-09-18 08:08
+1111
2020-09-18 22:07
#268
 | 
United Kingdom o_w_o
+1
2020-09-19 09:47
The problem is with loopholes, tax havens, tax fraud, avoidance, offshore accoutns and fake companies, money laundry. I dont think you make enough money to be involved with any of these, nor can you even be considered upper class by official standards (yet), so you are not RICH. In other words noone is talking to you.
2020-09-19 15:33
TAX THE RICH FEED THE POOR TIL THERE ARE NO RICH NO MORE
2020-09-17 17:55
I only believe that we should secure the full fruit of the workers by their hand or brain; Tax those who exploit workers by holding the means of production, those who do not work and acquire everything. In a way, abolish the income tax, put a heavy inheritance tax and capital gain tax. Profit is the real theft.
2020-09-17 18:02
soycialists: tax the rich the rich: leave and all the jobs are gone soycialists: surprisedpikachu.jpg
2020-09-17 18:55
+1
2020-09-17 20:27
common sense humans: the rich have to pay taxes just like everyone else, proportionate to their wealth and privilege. the rich: *has 25943090060 offshore accounts, fake companies and 200 men strong legal teams that spend every waking second to find loopholes to avoid paying taxes at all* Noobdaving: WelL akShUlLyY
2020-09-17 20:35
> proportionate to their wealth and privilege. stopped reading here
2020-09-17 20:38
so you think multi millionaires and billionaires have no privilege? and you think they should be taxed like everyone else? genius! great world view friend. the same rich men are so happy that little drones like you exist!
2020-09-17 20:39
#267
 | 
United Kingdom o_w_o
this was typed on a computer made by a 1%er! this person (or his parents) was able to afford this computer through working a job that was created by a 1%er like really mate? are you actually serious?
2020-09-19 09:46
what are you talking about? I built my own PC, with parts manufactured by machines or minimum wage workers, with ressources mined by poor 3rd world country miners that can barely afford a loaf of bread a week. my jobs thus far were in small companies by people who could barely be considered top 20% perhaps. what is your point?
2020-09-19 15:19
#308
 | 
United Kingdom o_w_o
your using an intel or an amd cpu (companies owned by a 1%er) your using a nvidia or amd graphics card (companies owned by a 1%er) those people are able to afford a living working for those 1%ers your literally helping those 1%ers by purchasing there products, increasing there wealth, and making those african workers work even harder you leftist are so hypocritical its not even funny
2020-09-19 21:44
i think your IQ can be counted with one hand
2020-09-19 21:47
#310
 | 
United Kingdom o_w_o
i think your lacking an actual argument so you insist on insulting me
2020-09-19 21:48
ignore what is said and throw random bullshit in the room hurr durr shut the fuck up brainlet
2020-09-19 22:01
#314
 | 
United Kingdom o_w_o
nah mate im just pointing out the hypocrisy that you leftist consistantly have is pretty boring and yet again your insulting me and not actually countering any of my points
2020-09-19 22:04
you didnt counter my point, you ignored it.
2020-09-19 22:21
#266
 | 
United Kingdom o_w_o
haahhahahahaha +1
2020-09-19 09:41
#110
 | 
Germany Moe1990
this thread shows how most people actually believe trickle down economics would work (and support it). which obviously does not, as proven countless of times, esp in the US. obviously taxing the rich is not wrong and absolutely necessary. rich people and organizations profit of the country they live and operate in. it is an illusion to think that companies on large scale would leave a country because of few percentage points of taxation. i profited of all the benefits of the country i live in (free schools, nearly free university, functional health care system --> not covered by tax, but doesnt matter here, good logistics etc). why would i not be willing to pay more than someone with less money (not just absolute, but also percentage wise). we have a progressive tax system, and i absolutely believe this is the right model to apply. we could argue of moving away from this model to a flat tax system, but then please close all loopholes available to reduce taxes (that are most only available for really rich people)
2020-09-17 19:04
"obviously taxing the rich is not wrong and absolutely necessary. rich people and organizations profit of the country they live and operate in. it is an illusion to think that companies on large scale would leave a country because of few percentage points of taxation." You risk all of those named to leave your country and that's not really wanted
2020-09-17 20:47
#167
 | 
Germany Moe1990
Again, I don’t believe this to be true. No major company would leave the US (or a major European country) because of some taxation, if it is not completely extreme. The tax cut given out by trump was also completely unnecessary. But believe believe in trickle down economics.
2020-09-17 20:58
I mean, most of the companies have moved their factories to the East already. They keep their HQs in the West just to be seen as Western companies. It prob wouldn't happen, but one shouldn't play with them.
2020-09-17 21:02
#173
 | 
Germany Moe1990
Yeah, but this is much more due to cheap labor which ist the real kicker in terms of profitability. We’re not talking about 5-10% percent on taxation, but huge labor cost differences. I just don’t believe any of the major firms will leave the us, European countries etc. headquarters don’t move easily. Im in no terms anti globalization, I think it is good as I truly believe it increases our living standard (if you’re not among the group who suffers from outsourced jobs).
2020-09-17 21:08
"I just don’t believe any of the major firms will leave the us, European countries etc." I mean, they do. But for different reasons (although in Mitsubishi's case it can be seen as an overtaxation)
2020-09-17 21:10
Hayek shitty logics
2020-09-17 19:24
tax money is mostly wasted but i do have a problem with generational wealth
2020-09-17 19:39
You can't fix generational wealth, but many of it runs out because the kids don't learn how to make their own money
2020-09-17 22:34
#140
 | 
Afghanistan TaIiban
I’m to the right and i don’t think so at all.
2020-09-17 19:52
wealthy have 25943090060 offshore accounts, fake companies and 200 men strong legal teams that spend every waking second to find loopholes to avoid paying taxes at all. and governments arent doing nearly enough to fix the situation so. this has nothing to do with communism, 1%ers have everything and pay less than the average joe.
2020-09-17 20:32
#265
 | 
United Kingdom o_w_o
nah mate i bet your working for a 1%er rn lawl
2020-09-19 09:40
okay nice arguments drone
2020-09-19 15:20
#164
 | 
France cestkazz
i'm suspect to answer since i'm libertarian...
2020-09-17 20:50
Lol that's cool.
2020-09-17 20:51
What a fucking Strawman
2020-09-17 21:02
ur dumb lol
2020-09-17 21:09
Not a single person thinks this lmao.
2020-09-17 21:26
I don't think it's Lenin and Stalin it's just that majority of people nowadays prefer to not use things related logic
2020-09-17 21:30
Taxes are good as long as are been used as intended where it is intended. It is for a reason countries with really great QoL having really high taxes like Canada for example
2020-09-17 22:33
Well.. if I want to opt out of healthcare etc. I should be able to do that, because paying taxes and paying private healthcare is ridiculous, government always F up.. if I want to opt out of education and pay private school I should be able to do that etc.. Taxes are somewhat of a theft, robbing you off of opportunities and throw you into a locked poor system
2020-09-17 22:34
What about public roads and highways, would you opt out of using them? Better start building you own, don't forget to buy the land
2020-09-17 22:53
I don't want to opt out of infrastructure
2020-09-17 23:02
#199
 | 
Germany Moe1990
no, you shouldn't be able t opt out of these things. you live in a country, you play according to the country's laws. where is this idea coming from that you as an individual can fully decide for yourself where you want to opt-in vs opt-out.
2020-09-17 23:06
It's an idea I wish for as it will correct and balance quality, create accountability because right now everything in my country that's related to pretty much anything public is substandard compared to private business.. the tax money is being pissed away
2020-09-17 23:13
If the state taxes rich people, they are going to invest less, and consequently, the state earns less. Taxing rich people is the dumbest thing ever created by greeks I guess
2020-09-17 22:31
Oh wow a person using his brain
2020-09-17 22:42
If there werent taxes you would be 3rd world in Turkey and for the record is an Egypt thing. As for Greece, you still dont know about democracy in Turkey, you having dictatorship, i dont blame you
2020-09-18 01:30
My flag = China, not Turkey
2020-09-18 21:07
Even worse with communism etc
2020-09-18 21:13
Many old civilizations were also aristocracies with a cast system that would punish the poor so I wouldn't talk to much about old civilizations
2020-09-17 22:32
Also educated Americans know that taxing the rich more is not communism, it's just annoying that people spend so much on taxes just for the government to waste it with their shitty budget
2020-09-17 22:33
The rich already pay a shit ton more than normal people, because they can afford more and subsequently pay more. If I earn 30k a year I'd have a small app and a cheap car, but if I earn 200k a year I'd have a big apartment and 2-3 cars in my garage and I'd be paying 3-4 times the taxes you are... By taxing the rich more you will get fewer investments and people will start looking elsewhere for starting a business or continuing one.
2020-09-17 22:45
WOW! high earning ppl pay more at the same rate than low earners????????? YOU DONT SAY?
2020-09-18 21:42
I don't get the point of your comment...
2020-09-18 22:16
exactly
2020-09-18 22:45
*Proceeds to explain nothing*
2020-09-18 23:15
my point is your comment is fucking pointless. rich people pay more taxes but not relatively speaking. and overall rich people pay less taxes than ever before. the majority of tax income is naturally stemmed by - if we stay with america - the average person with less than 5000USD to their name.
2020-09-18 23:28
Let me tell you one thing... you don't make the game unfair you make it harder. If someone has worked his ass off for his company to succeed he should be rewarded, not punished for flourishing the economy of said country. He is paying a shit ton compared to normal people why does he need to pay even more? Ofc that the majority of tax comes from middle-class people they are a lot more. This still doesn't answer my question. Why does he have to pay more? Why do things have to be unfair for the rich people?
2020-09-19 09:32
Are we talking about 1% and above? Then things are not unfair for rich people, they are the opposite. They have more responsibility but take none , as greatly illustrated here: palladiummag.com/2019/08/05/the-real-pro.. they have more privileges, power both local and global, opportunities, etc etc. They also produce the largest carbon footprints while virtue signaling poorer people to take the bus. Yet they hide their taxable incomes, investments and money in offshore accounts, fake companies, tax havens and abuse loopholes to avoid paying what they owe. This is not a mistery, this is known. On top, the wealthiest pay less taxes than ever before in the US - they also pay less relatively speaking, just saying. So why should this be tolerated? Why should multimillionaires not pay equal or more than someone who can barely make ends meet and yet has to give away 30-40% of his income?
2020-09-19 15:27
First, there is no taxation in communism, since communism is a phase where no state exist. Secondly, I think that poor people should have, proportionally, less tax while rich people should have more. This would increse the average life quality, reduce poverty and unequality.
2020-09-17 22:51
tell it on the forums about politics, not about cs go, I do not litter hltv with garbage
2020-09-18 07:56
The Media got too autistic thats why
2020-09-18 08:20
We have football players here in Belgium (who make easily 10 times a normal wage) paying much less taxes than regular working people.
2020-09-18 15:17
the USA isnt a normal country, they've been brainwashed to think that only "one" matters. It's me me me, more for me, more for me, fuck the rest, literally since birth that is what is ingrained in our brain. Its simple, if you ask me if i would pay more taxes to help the society i live in i'd say yes, if you ask the avg American he'd say fuck the rest i dont want to help anybody because i need more money. This is wrong, systematically wrong and needs to change to a certain degree
2020-09-18 17:15
Im not rich but forcing huge taxes on rich is unfair imo. Everyone should have the same % when we talk about actual equality, right? And just bcuz someone is more successful than you doesnt fuckin mean he is supposed to pay for your jealousness.
2020-09-18 17:46
butt the impact on the living condition between a rich person and a totally different poor person at the same %, if a person receives 100 and is taxed at 10% he has to pay 10, that is, depending on where you live and the difference eating, or paying basic bills to survive. now if a person receives 100k and is taxed for the same amount, he pays 10k, which is much more than the first but the effect on the living condition is much less ,the only impact on his life is that maybe he will have to wait an extra month to make that trip or buy a car he wanted
2020-09-18 21:02
#287
 | 
Sweden wyv0
That's solved by having a minimum salary, everyone working any job deserves basic living conditions.
2020-09-19 16:05
minimum salary does not solve the problem because the minimum value to survive varies greatly from city to city and is affected by the market all the time, and it is stupid to think that only people who work deserve the basic conditions of survival, because in the system we live in today it is it is impossible to employ everyone, since unemployment is one of the ways to control the average wage of the population
2020-09-19 16:30
#294
 | 
Sweden wyv0
city based minimum salary solves that "and it is stupid to think that only people who work deserve the basic conditions of survival, because in the system we live in today it is it is impossible to employ everyone, since unemployment is one of the ways to control the average wage of the population" basic living conditions would apply these people, people working a job however would deserve slightly higher living conditions, the ones who work these minimum salary jobs.
2020-09-19 16:48
it is impossible to keep up with market variations... "basic living conditions would apply these people, people working a job however would deserve slightly higher living conditions, the ones who work these minimum salary jobs." how do you plan to achieve this without taxing the richest to redistribute to the poorest? because by taxing those who are receiving minimum wages, they will go back to poverty, the only way is to tax the richest to compensate to the loss of taxes of the poorest, and it is what I defend that must be done.
2020-09-19 19:59
#303
 | 
Sweden wyv0
"how do you plan to achieve this without taxing the richest to redistribute to the poorest?" ???????????????????????????????????????????????? "because by taxing those who are receiving minimum wages, they will go back to poverty, the only way is to tax the richest to compensate to the loss of taxes of the poorest, and it is what I defend that must be done" ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? %tax means if someone earns 200k a year with a let's say 25% tax, 50k goes to the state, if someone poorer with minimum wage earns let's say 50k (just an example, i don't say this would be the minimum wage since I wouldn't know what it should be) then 12.5k goes to the state. automatically this means that OBVIOUSLY it would be distributed to the poor, so I really don't get why you just said that... This market variations you talk about wouldn't be fluctuating so insanely wildly, that it completely would dictate from month to month so that they can't afford anything. It's quite the hilarious argument when debating against minimum wage wtf
2020-09-19 20:21
I am not debating the need for the minimum wage I am saying that it is not a sufficient action to sustain a minimum condition of survival, and the market can vary in one month, example would be low food production due to some disease or natural disaster in the plantations or meat production, that would raise the price of food to an absurd value really fast, now a direct impact personally would be a person getting sick, certain treatments are extremely expensive in a way that a person who receives minimum wage cannot afford. "%tax means if someone earns 200k a year with a let's say 25% tax, 50k goes to the state, if someone poorer with minimum wage earns let's say 50k (just an example, i don't say this would be the minimum wage since I wouldn't know what it should be) then 12.5k goes to the state. " here you are saying exactly the same thing as me, part of the solution is to% rate the richest person higher than a poor person ... now what i'm saying is that let's say that to survive in a city the person needs 40k in minimum to pay basics to live, without considering unforeseen events, taxing it 12.5k is enough to not only keep it on the poverty line, but also to sink it further.
2020-09-19 20:49
#305
 | 
Sweden wyv0
The higher the minimum wage is, the higher the chance of sustaining the minimum condition of survival in a flat tax rate society. It would be completely dependant on what the minimum wage would be set as. Obviously I don't know what the %tax rate would be NEITHER would I know what the minimum wage would be set to. OBVIOUSLY it would be calculated by taking "market variations" and other stuff in mind. Also you would pay flat tax on consumption and services not only income tax. TAX CITYYYYY baby
2020-09-19 21:03
I think we both agree that % rates have to be higher for the rich than for the poor and how it should be defined is based on the basic condition of life. the problem that has other factors that define the minimum wage as what a company (from small stores to large companies) can pay for the employee...certain things like market variations are not so easy to calculate. I agree with tax on consumption and services, but certain services should, if not offered by the government, the government should pay for the poorest population, such as health, from preventive health, to the treatment of more expensive diseases such as cancer, which depending on which country or cancer you have may be the total salary of a lifetime
2020-09-19 21:41
by far one of the stupidest fucking comments ive ever read on hltv and ive been here since like 1992 bro.. you're a true imbecile.
2020-09-18 21:40
and you're a jealous weakling that cant stand and live with the fact that there are more successful people than yourself :D u literally act like a born looser lol
2020-09-19 09:35
#288
 | 
Sweden wyv0
nothing of substance to say?
2020-09-19 16:06
#245
 | 
Belgium lil_vodka
-1 this is sooo retarded if the rich one has a salary of 20k/month & the poor one has a salary of 1200/month U WANNA TAX THEM THE SAME PERCENTAGE then it'll be ezzz for rich mens but hard af for poor mens
2020-09-18 21:49
So what? They still pay more, you should be fuckin happy cuz they contribute more to country's income yet you have the same rights and the same right to vote etc. You have the same opportunities to be successful, do something, get rich and stop complaining and trying to steal from those who worked hard for it.
2020-09-19 09:37
#264
 | 
United Kingdom o_w_o
rich people are providing for poor people you nonce
2020-09-19 09:39
#289
 | 
Sweden wyv0
Raise minimum salary allowed, to match being able to have the most basic living conditions or whatever "conditions" the public thinks any working human deserves.
2020-09-19 16:08
+1
2020-09-18 22:18
ITT: poor people arguing for rich people why said rich people should not pay equal or more than poor people
2020-09-19 15:30
#281
 | 
Lebanon Dogman69
technically I don't pay my taxes, the company I work for does it on my behalf
2020-09-19 15:38
from a neutral pov can someone actually say even 1 good reason why one person should own 200 billion usd? like i understand and im all for people using their money how they want if they earn it themselves but you cant really give even 1 good reason for one person to have so much money.
2020-09-19 16:03
#286
 | 
Brazil Catatauu
Everyone should be taxed same %
2020-09-19 16:04
what about slavery
2020-09-19 22:02
#315
 | 
Brazil Catatauu
what about it?
2020-09-19 22:04
shouldn't white people be taxed higher to pay reparations
2020-09-19 22:04
#317
 | 
Brazil Catatauu
???? kk
2020-09-19 22:07
kkkkkkkkkk
2020-09-19 23:27
Tax is theft imho but if you are gonna tax someone it's best to do it to the ultramegarich like cunts like Bobby Kotick who are pretty much thieves themselves.
2020-09-19 16:37
#318
 | 
Brazil Catatauu
yeah but they will not pay it anyway lul
2020-09-19 22:10
SKADE
1.94
HERCEGNOVI
1.81
Izako Boars
1.20
Gaminate
4.24
TIGER
2.43
HZ
1.54
Bet value
Amount of money to be placed
Winning
Odds total ratio
-
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.