NOOOOOOOOOOO U CANT JUST ROB RICH PEOPLE WHO HAVE WAY ENOUGH MONEY NOOOOOOOOOO THEY ACTUALLY DONT NEED SO MUCH MONEY...

Who are you quoting?

fool's are easier to fool, sorry

Robbing the rich is cool and good, actually. Of course the chuds of Jow Forums all see themselves as temporarily disadvantaged millionaires so they will have a mad sad about why it's "wrong".

>NOOOOOOOO U CANT DEFEND YOURSELF OR TAKE WHAT YOU NEED TO SURVIVE LET ALONE GET AHEAD! MY PIECE OF PAPER SAYS I HAVE THE ETERNAL CONTEXTLESS RIIIIIIIGHT TO KEEP THIS WEALTH IT'S NOT YOUUURS AAAAAAAGH THIS CAN'T BE HAPPENING HOW DARE YOU AGGRESS AGAINST ME

Cringe and killyourselfpilled

>muh taxes are an act of aggression meme

Attached: 84C4F512-73A5-4C67-ACB8-5F06434BC35F.jpg (700x700, 209K)

>stealing good
See:

Ok mr. Temporarily embarrassed millionaire. I'm sure someday you'll have enough money where what you are talking about is actually relevant to you :^)

>forcing you to do something you dont want to do at gunpoint isnt violence
would you still pay taxes if it was optional? if there was a box on your w2, or 1044 in chads case, that said "no sorry im not paying this year" would you check it? what if it was an optional amount? how much would you pay if you could choose? 5% of your income? 10%? why not 50%? why not 90%?

Funny cause the FED and wall street are OPENLY ROBBING the country blind. But if it's MUH CAPITALISM!!
Medicare for all? FUCK YOU SOCIALIST!

>implying the fed and wallstreet could do this shit you are accusing them of if they didnt have government enforcement to rely on
watch out for those McDonalds (TM) McGestapo, forcing you at gunpoint to buy your monthly BigMac

Covetousness is a sin, user.

>watch out for those McDonalds (TM) McGestapo, forcing you at gunpoint to buy your monthly BigMac
Don't need a gestapo for that if you're holding LINK

>>implying the fed and wallstreet could do this shit you are accusing them of if they didnt have government enforcement to rely on
You fucking yank-ideology retards. What the fuck do you think "government" is except a label that's more successful than McGestapo?
Even that's oversimplifying it to soften the contrast between your ideology and reality. The distinction between state and capital is too subtle for you to actually explain, it seems, otherwise you wouldn't raise such ridiculous scenarios as police and legal systems changing their branding to "McGestapo" as if that would be the only substantive change that could be made.

What religion and denomination are you?

Doesn't matter. Covetousness is a sin, a comingling of greed and envy that poisons you.

>taxing the obscenely wealthy is bad cuz why not tax 100% heh gotem

Great arguments bro

so you wouldnt pay if you didnt have to, got it, thanks for playing

>Doesn't matter.
Yes it does. If you're a Jew, or worse, a Calvinist, your idea of sin is designed only to justify your own covetousness. Or you could be an atheist dishonestly using the concept of "sin" to mean "hurting my interests".

hmm... i wonder how the US government operated before the federal reserve and our current tax system was created... huh, thats weird... wait, you mean there was a point in time when there were no taxes? whoa, duuuude, that cant be right

That's why it's called tax and not voluntary contribution. What kind of retard thinks taxes have to be voluntary?

top laugh, sergey is the new obergruppenfuhrer, confirmed

>governments should not exist
Does that include the govt of Israel?

so the only reason you are paying is because you have to. kinda flies in the faces of your commie ideology, doesnt it? oops

> smugly advocating for theft.
Lol OP is literally a nigger

Attached: gyFtfA3.png (720x718, 818K)

How are retards like yourself so confused by the concept that theft is wrong? THEFT IS WRONG
>but user you have more than en
Shot in the fucking head because you’re a fucking thief who doesn’t get to decide how much is enough.

wut the jews have stolen so much from usa, at some point it isnt stealing, its taking back what was always yours

And yet we vote every year for the party promising to increase them

>hmm... i wonder how the US government operated before the federal reserve and our current tax system was created
They had taxes from the beginning of the US. I don't know what you intend to illustrate except stupidity with these feigned ignorance rhetorical questions.

>kinda flies in the faces of your commie ideology, doesnt it? oops
How so? You're the one saying no one should be taxed more than they're willing to pay.
I'm saying taxes are what the government of a society takes in order to achieve political ends. Consent is not necessary, and pieces of paper do not grant magic inviolable rights.

>you’re a fucking thief who doesn’t get to decide how much is enough.
But you get to decide that no one can access "private property"? What gives you the right to put up a wall around a well and say no one has the right to drink from it? What do you even mean by rights? Needs are more objective than rights, after all.

> Our current tax system
> Current tax system
Hurrrr we always had taxes! Are you legitimately retarded?

I mean, you can try, but you'll probably get shot or go to jail.

>NOOOOOOOOOOO U CANT JUST ROB RICH PEOPLE WHO HAVE WAY ENOUGH MONEY NOOOOOOOOOO THEY ACTUALLY DONT NEED SO MUCH MONEY BUT ROBBING THEM IS NOT OKAY NOOOOOOOOO
>wut the jews have stolen so much from usa, at some point it isnt stealing, its taking back what was always yours
So we steal back stolen goy money from Jews and then proportionately distribute it so that those who contribute to society get more (since more of their hard earned money was stolen) and those who contribute less get nothing and then exterminated (because fuck the working class and the poor bring in robots so my big mac order doesn't get fucked up AGAIN)

>before
You are retarded and illiterate.
There was never a time without taxes, as you implied, unless of course you're trying to do sarcasm in a thread full of unironic retards, in which case I'm not going to bother trying to extract meaning from your post until you explain what it is you want to say, if you even know.

>taxes from the beginning
good old public school education. tariffs are not taxes.
>consent is not necessary
true. i dont need the governments consent either if they dont represent me and what i want. how do they enforce their demands otherwise? violence? okay, they get met with violence in return. simple as.
>pieces of paper do not grant magic rights
also true. they paper doesnt grant them. it acknowledges and PROCLAIMS PROUDLY that we have them no matter what anyone or anything says and they cant be taken away peacefully.
>what do you even mean by rights
needs are absolutely not more objective than rights you jackass. what do you mean by "needs"?

>there was never a time without taxes
but thats wrong, tyrone

Not all rich people are Jews. Stealing from thieves is of course based.

>what gives you the right to put up a wall around a well?
Cause I fucking made it or purchased it. Without private property you cannot own your own body. I could rape you or anyone and it wouldn’t be an ethical issue. Private property is the foundation of all virtue and thieves like yourself are a threat to all that is good in the world and deserve the rope.

You're just showing how retarded you are if you think I'm talking about federal government only. Don't presume to talk about history if all you can see in history is coloured by what is current, namely the existence of a federal government over 50 states, with a unified tax system.
You're also 99% retarded 1% disingenuous if you think tariffs and excises are not taxes.

>true. i dont need the governments consent either if they dont represent me and what i want. how do they enforce their demands otherwise? violence? okay, they get met with violence in return. simple as.
All bluster, pussy. You put up this rugged individual myth because you're too stupid, misanthropic, and cowardly to address things as they stand.
>also true. they paper doesnt grant them. it acknowledges and PROCLAIMS PROUDLY that we have them no matter what anyone or anything says and they cant be taken away peacefully.
Pure guff. You and your fellow libertarian Americanism ideologues have the wool pulled over your eyes by this fantasy of having magic paper and being Rambo with your pop guns which will be worthless against drones.

>Cause I fucking made it or purchased it.
No. Even in cases where there's a real claim to placing the origin of something of value in a person, there's so many factors including raw materials and the labour of others that makes a singular claim to ownership irrelevant. Even if one accepted this childish theory of where original ownership comes from, there's no coherent reason why "ownership" should be honoured, particularly when the real world origins of private ownership make the "original ownership" idea completely irrelevant.
Who's got the "right" to a well: the person who built the well, the person who paid the people to build the well, the person who owns the land the well was built on, or the people who need to drink?
And the body is not "property", because the connection of a person to their body is not artificial.

Stop replying to these worthless fucking threads. There’s also some bitchy communist with low-T complaining

If you think all rich people do is hoard money and party all day long, you are a product of the media.

Rich people spend their money furthering their wealth, investing and developing. The wealthy knows what to do with their money and MOVE THE ECONOMY.

If we steal money from them and give the low class FREE SHIT then the economy will die. Maybe the tendies and fast food stocks will rise but most of the money will be wasted on stupid shit.

Attached: atten.jpg (877x713, 43K)

Stop having such niggerish time preferences

>needs are absolutely not more objective than rights you jackass. what do you mean by "needs"?
A need is the things required in order to do something. It's not a subjective claim to make that someone needs food, water, and shelter to survive. It's not completely subjective that someone needs affordable transport, electricity, health insurance, and a modicum of consumer goods in order to live a comfortable life by western standards.
A "right" is more if not completely subjective, in the fields of what property a person is "entitled" to. Particularly under theories which place these entitlements outside of any context of merit - ie: "I have the right to this because the system says I have the right to it". Or a theory which devolves reality into abstractions such as the farcical notion that all true claims to property ownership derive from creation by the original property owner.

The threads are worthless because of retarded mutts like you

>most of the money will be wasted on stupid shit.
Pro-tip: it already is.

>waaaah b-bluster! pussy! pure g-g-guff!
absolutely no arguments :) if you want it come and take it basedlord, or maybe its you who is the pussy. how does a government enforce its will, if it doesnt do what its constituents want? does it or does it not use violence? why is violence acceptable for a government to use against citizens but not the other way around?
>the body is not propery because they connection of a person to their body isnt artificial
who owns a childs body, the child or the mother and father? the child wouldnt have a body if it wasnt for the mother and father and maybe wouldnt survive without the mother and father.

cool, but while right now big money is wasted on corrupt large business transactions and contracts, the poor will waste it on snickers and lottery tickets. No productivity at all.

BASED BEYOND BELIEF

Attached: images (22).jpg (739x415, 28K)

noooooo you can't just let user who posted this stupid commie shit use his computer, there's a kid in africa who needs it way more than he does
noooo he shouldn't eat, there's a somali kid who was so hungry he jumped up onto my arm earlier and started biting the fuck out of it
sleeping? you need to mine diamonds for the africans, think of how many blood diamonds your fellow whites used, you must pay reparations and you must do it with the principles of african culture as your guide

Fucking commie

>someone needs food, water, and shelter to survive
ahhh, babbies first psychology course, dont bring maslows bullshit in here. its absolutely subjective because different people have different needs. take "food" for example. what is "food" to one person is poison to another. if you give someone who is allergic to peanuts and shellfish nothing but peanut butter dipped lobster, congrats, you have fulfilled their "need" by giving them "food", well done.
>transport, electricity, health insurance, and consumer goods
ah yes, those inuits and amazones cant live without their iphones, of course, as soon as you take it out of their hands they just keel over on the spot.
RIGHTS. ARE. UNIVERSAL.
EVERYONE has the right to speak their mind without coercion.
EVERYONE has the right to defend their bodies and property from harm.
EVERYONE has the right to be left alone if they so choose.
NO OTHER FACTORS COME INTO PLAY.
it is entirely the OPPOSITE of subjective.

exceptional response

>if you want it come and take it basedlord
You pay taxes. I know you do.
>how does a government enforce its will, if it doesnt do what its constituents want? does it or does it not use violence?
It uses violence. How is a government using violence to control property any different than you using violence to control property?
>why is violence acceptable for a government to use against citizens but not the other way around?
It's acceptable for the government to use violence against civilians for the good of the community, and acceptable for civilians to use violence against the government (and in the absence of government, civilians) for the good of the community. Do you disagree? If you use violence against the community for your own benefit, that is what I'd call theft.
>who owns a childs body, the child or the mother and father?
I already said it's stupid to think of bodies in terms of ownership. The relationship between parents and children is one of duty and authority. Ownership isn't the right framework at all.

I'd be interested to see precise breakdowns from autists or spergs whose job it is to compile these statistics, but the wealthy aren't spending zero-sum money that would otherwise go to the poor on the wealthy version of what is available for poor people to spend their money on. The wealthy are the people who the poor give their money to, so if that means fried chicken and lottery tickets, that reflects on the wealthy perhaps more than the poor.

I’ll explain it because others might read it. You are either evil or retarded and evil and so get the rope.
People own whatever they spent value to acquire. If you spend time and labour to create something, you own it. If you compensate someone else to spend their time and labour to create something, you own it. If you purchase what another produced with their time and labor you own it.
A few things, all purchases are by definition voluntary. If any human being applied force or the threat of force to achieve a transaction it is theft. And no, nature does count. Working to avoid starvation does not void the agreement between the worker and employer/customer. Reality can not make agreements or conceptualize transactions so it’s pressure is not an act of aggression.
Money is the physical manifestation of value. Time and labour are ephemeral. The same quantity of time or labour does not equal the same quantity of value produced for yourself or someone else. Money allows the value produced to be quantified with price. Price being determined by the free market which is just a bunch of people proposing what they’d be willing to pay and the seller considering what they’d be willing to accept.
Everything that isn’t what I described is theft. It is evil and comes from evil people. Their premise is to have people produce and then consume it themselves at no or reduced cost to themselves. It’s the definition of slavery and must be fought with every ducking bullet at our disposal lest our nations turn into the hellscapes of soviet Russia and communist China.

>ahhh, babbies first psychology course, dont bring maslows bullshit in here.
Lol, you're only showing yourself to be proud of babby's first psychology course, if you think the obvious statement "people need food, water, and shelter to survive" has to be cited and attributed to Maslow. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, faggot.
>its absolutely subjective because different people have different needs. take "food" for example. what is "food" to one person is poison to another. if you give someone who is allergic to peanuts and shellfish nothing but peanut butter dipped lobster, congrats, you have fulfilled their "need" by giving them "food", well done.
Maybe you should take out another student loan and do babbies first logic, because A), that's not what subjectivity means, and B), even if there's variance in the suitable types of "food" for a given person, there's no subjectivity in people's need for "food".
>ah yes, those inuits and amazones cant live without their iphones, of course, as soon as you take it out of their hands they just keel over on the spot.
Come on babby, try to do some independent thinking. I'm not grading your posts on how closely you understand Maslow's pyramid, because I'm not making Maslow's argument. If you were able to read and didn't just dredge up whatever crappy essay you once wrote on Maslow, you would have noticed I explicitly stated that the "need" I was referring to is the "things required in order to do something", in this case "live a comfortable life by western standards".
You admit this by having to apply the things subjectively needed for a comfortable life by western standards to the needs of a comfortable life by Inuit standards.

>RIGHTS. ARE. UNIVERSAL.
Why? How?

Exceptionally gay.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution would like a word with you, about how stupid you are.

>you pay taxes
>implying
dont be jealous because im more creative than you.
>how is government using violence different than you using violence
maybe because i am infringing upon no one else rights be defending myself, whereas the government is exclusively using violence to take from others? you tell me, whats the difference between a thief and a victim? just because they both have guns doesnt mean they are equal, one is entirely the aggressor and the other is entirely the defender
>for the good of the community
ahhhh, the rallying cry of communism. tell me, if something isnt good for an individual, how could it be good for a community composed of individuals? you seem to conflate "government" and community, because you if i replaced every word of "community" in your sentence with "government", your message doesnt change. however, if you replace "community" in your sentence with "individual", it changes completely, which is MY message. see the difference? the government IS NOT the community. the individual IS.
>n-no you cant say thats the framework my commie propaganda doesnt hold up if you change the framework logically like that noooo
Ownership absolutely applies to bodies, unless you think sex workers dont own their bodies, shitlord

I don't like to exercise and eat well, but I'm forced to for good health, and me doing something I don't like actually is much better for me than if I truly did only what I wanted, which is eat pizza and smoke weed all day. Taxes, in theory, are almost like this. I'd rather pay taxes then rely on the free market to provide roads, firemen, military, education, police. If our national infrastructure was based on delusional libertarian brainlets like you finding a way to fuck everyone all the time while living off the productivity of people you pretend don't exist, this country would collapse overnight

>thats not what subjectivity means

Subjectivity
noun
noun: subjectivity; plural noun: subjectivities
the quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"he is the first to acknowledge the subjectivity of memories"
the quality of existing in someone's mind rather than the external world.
"the subjectivity of human perception"

Yes, thats exactly what subjectivity is. What is "food" to one person is not "food" to another, the definition of "food" is different for those people. You cannot determine whether someone "NEEDS" food or not if you cant even define what "FOOD" is.
>live a comfortable life by western standards
moving the goalposts, huh. okay. Your implication is that in order to not die, you "NEED" live up to a "comfortable life by western standards" and if that isnt subjective as all hell then i dont know what to tell you. Do people who live below the poverty line not survive? are they all actually dead? what about people who willingly go without those things, Thoreau comes to mind. did he actually die as soon as he was separated from his previous living situation?
If you were teleported to a campsite on a lake with a fishing rod and bait and a tent and nothing else, would you instantly die because your "comfortable western needs" arent being met? or would you survive?

>RIGHTS. ARE. UNIVERSAL.
Ah, magical thinking. Let's take a human construct, and make it "universal". LOL. Human arrogance, always funny.

>Taxes, in theory, are almost like this
Taxes, in theory and practice, are absofuckinglutely nothing like that, for one simple reason.
you are your own peson, you can decide what you want to do with your body. just because YOU decide what is good for YOU does NOT MEAN it is good for ME, but YOU are taking that choice AWAY from ME by using government coercion and threats of violence against me. what gives YOU the right to make decisions about MY body just because YOU are a lazy sack of shit and I ENJOY exercise and eating well? fuck me, right? i guess you are just more important than i am.

>You are either evil or retarded and evil and so get the rope.
Bluster. I can picture it now, when your podunk farm or suburban mcmansion gets the south africa treatment. That's not even what I want, but your retardation means it's inevitable for America. At least the CEOs will thank you for supporting them.
>People own whatever they spent value to acquire.
How can someone "spend value" without "owning" value in the first place? Circular logic it seems, unless there's some kind of value that people inherently can produce? You seem to be saying labour is that inherent ability to produce value. So if someone
>If any human being applied force or the threat of force to achieve a transaction it is theft.
You do know that all land ownership ultimately goes back to the use of force, and all wealth besides bare labour goes back to natural resources? So all property is theft since it derives from force? Or is it only all property as it currently stands that is immune from being appropriated by violence, and only those pre-existing claims to violence-derived property are valid? Because that doesn't seem coherent.

>Money is the physical manifestation of value. Time and labour are ephemeral. The same quantity of time or labour does not equal the same quantity of value produced for yourself or someone else. Money allows the value produced to be quantified with price. Price being determined by the free market which is just a bunch of people proposing what they’d be willing to pay and the seller considering what they’d be willing to accept.
Word salad of irrelevancies at best. You initially claimed only time and labour could bestow ownership. Now "money" does, independent of time and labour. The function of money in relation to price doesn't seem relevant to the relation of money to ownership. It would seem that money being used to take wealth from those whose time and labour produced it is incorrect? And that's without considering the control government violence has on the relation of both money to value and money to ownership. Your theory doesn't stack up, seems to contradict itself.
>Everything that isn’t what I described is theft.
What you described isn't coherent enough to describe how people own things, let alone extrapolate what it is you aren't describing.
>It is evil and comes from evil people.
I don't think you understand evil. Remove the log from your eye.
>Their premise is to have people produce and then consume it themselves at no or reduced cost to themselves.
who are you referring to?
>It’s the definition of slavery and must be fought with every ducking bullet at our disposal lest our nations turn into the hellscapes of soviet Russia and communist China.
Lol. Chinese and Russian history books will teach their future generations about the path to avoid that led to the hellscape of America.

who doesnt have those rights? do you not have the right to speak your mind? do you not have the right to defend yourself?

Someone get the safe space and coloring books ready, someone is VERY upset.

Hello Raskolnikov

>I’d rather pay taxes
No, you’d rather other people contribute to your expenses and be forced to if they refuse.
There has never been an instance where the government was more efficient than the free market. This is because the government has nothing to lose. They didn’t make the money they stole it and they can always steal more so they don’t mind if they lose it. Private entities risk losing everything if they fail so they strive for efficiency to reduce the probability of failure. THIS is why prices decline and abundance expands in free markets while prices rise and scarcity starves people with government.

>People who have not succeeded see themselves as having the potential to succeed, what a bunch of retards!

>no argument
someone get the ropes and crosses ready, someone is VERY ready to die

75% correct. The government uses taxes to pay free market entities to do a cheap ass job of maintaining and creating that infrastructure.

>maybe because i am infringing upon no one else rights be defending myself, whereas the government is exclusively using violence to take from others? you tell me, whats the difference between a thief and a victim? just because they both have guns doesnt mean they are equal, one is entirely the aggressor and the other is entirely the defender
If you refuse to address the rights the community has over the property of the individual, but insist on individual property "rights" which exist in the contextless abstract above community authority, or worse, reject community authority entirely, that is aggression, and anything you hold as against the community is theft.
> if something isnt good for an individual, how could it be good for a community composed of individuals?
The greater good. I'm surprised you thought this question was worth asking.
>because you if i replaced every word of "community" in your sentence with "government", your message doesnt change. however, if you replace "community" in your sentence with "individual", it changes completely, which is MY message. see the difference? the government IS NOT the community. the individual IS.
That's retarded. Community and government are not the same, I don't intend to conflate them. But individual and community are words which stand in more marked distinction than community and government. When an individual defines themselves as an individual as against a member of community, that's a sign of a perverse individual or community breakdown.
>Ownership absolutely applies to bodies, unless you think sex workers dont own their bodies, shitlord
Ownership doesn't apply to bodies because human beings are hylemorphic beings. The only thing in liberal theory stupider than the free-floating mind is the free-floating "right".

Oh, look, someone is VERY angry.

I could try and explain it to you, like you're five, but why bother?

I can destroy your entire argument with two words:

"Says who?"

Now please write several long, screeching replies fumbling around like a halfwit trying to "prove" authority for a human construct. Should be fun.

You're what we call a leech. Take from society and never improve it and actively object to rules set in place to benefit the society you wish to take advantage of

LOL, someone is being very DRAMATIC today, aren't they?

Were you one of those halfwits who were doing jazz hands and sniveling about being triggered by noise pollution from clapping recently?

Or, it all sounds very similar to those Jewish fellows who started that human construct we call communism, which was another movement that was started because someone didn't want to pay their taxes, and thought the world owed them a living.

It always boils down to selfishness to these types. If they were thrown on a desert island with a handful of other people, they'd be the one crouched in a cave writing scathing manifestos about rights and rules for their new society, instead of, you know, finding food, water, and shelter. And once the others provided those things, would claim them as a "right", comrade.

Jeff Bezos doesn’t pay taxes. Amazon doesn’t pay taxes.

They do provide jobs they are trying their damndest to automate and causing employees to literally piss themselves on the job for fear of taking bathroom break.

The US is so unwilling to reel in big business I don’t even want to be here anymore.

If you weren’t born wealthy you’re fucked from day 1. If your parents can’t pay for your existence like college/living/food and you never have to work an honest day in your life start learning German. At least they give half a shit about their citizens.

>Yes, thats exactly what subjectivity is. What is "food" to one person is not "food" to another, the definition of "food" is different for those people.
Peanuts remain food even if some people cannot eat them, because that is a defect in the people who cannot eat peanuts, not something that fundamentally alters the essence of peanuts.
>You cannot determine whether someone "NEEDS" food or not if you cant even define what "FOOD" is.
Good thing we can define what food is.
Alternatively, we can extrapolate from people undergoing starvation that they need to consume something in order to survive, and that which they need to consume in order to survive is "food". The "need" for food comes in the perspective of being necessary in order to survive.
>Your implication is that in order to not die, you "NEED" live up to a "comfortable life by western standards" and if that isnt subjective as all hell then i dont know what to tell you.
You are either incapable of following an argument or making an honest one. What I said was that certain things are needed in order for a person to be living a comfortable life by western standards. A person does not "need" a comfortable life by western standards in order to survive. A person needs a comfortable life by western standards in order to live comfortably if they are accustomed to western standards. It follows that those who are accustomed to western standards need the things which are necessary for a comfortable life by western standards in order to live comfortably.
What is "needed" depends whether the goal is survival or something higher up the Maslow pyramid (Maslow being relevant to this part of the discussion). This is because "needs" are defined in relation to "goals". If your goal is to prove me wrong, you need to address my argument. If your goal is to buttress your ego all you need to do is type out another shitty non-argument and hit post.

>Jeff Bezos doesn’t pay taxes.
You have access to his personal tax returns? Really? Even though that's completely illegal, unless he gives you access to them?

Oh, wait, it's just another paranoid schizophrenic who thinks corporate tax shenanigans apply to his personal taxes. So I can safely disregard anything you posted, even if I personally think the tax loopholes the corporation he runs is abusing needs to be closed. Because I'm an adult, who knows that corporate taxes aren't the same as personal income tax, like some dummies do.

It’s pretty well known he uses loopholes to get around personal taxes, and amazon itself does the same with corporate loopholes.

why the fuck are zoomers so god damn weak. we can tell you're a zoomer too. you're not going to make it unless you make it for yourself faggot. the sooner you get started the farther ahead you'll be.

why does anyone in the us still pay? I don't understand. Would it really be that hard to meme normies to stop paying 30%+ of their money given how demoralized things are at this point?

>It’s pretty well known
Yeah, no, it's not, and your lame defense of your original retardation was expected. Keep trying, Champ. Like most retards, if you keep running headfirst into the wall, you'll get through, someday.

Lmao literally google it, retard

Because the government has guns and can deprive you of liberty of you don't pay. Or take your shit. Does this really need to be explained? Don't wanna pay taxes? Then run for office, in the Congress, and help pass laws that get rid of them. Get back to us on your progress.

do you know the difference between personal tax vs. corporate tax? if not, then you should probably just shut the fuck up.

And another dent in the wall appears.

this is almost dystopian

Attached: 1423952499244.jpg (474x470, 83K)

I said amazon doesn’t pay taxes and Jeff Bezos doesn’t pay taxes. Separately. I’m literally taking to an illiterate person pls be troll

not the guy you're responding to, but
>human rights aren't universal to all humans
so, at this point, you're arguing that things that are literally inherent non-violent traits of being human—speaking and thinking, having ownership of and protecting your own a human body and your own private property separate from other people's property, choosing who to associate and who not to associate with—AREN'T human rights. it is at this point that you have to realize that people such as you and i are not of the same book, and trying to change each-others' minds is a waste of time.
we all exactly have the right ideas for ourselves, and we will all get exactly what we actually deserve.

Again: "says who?"

And several more posts of gibberish will follow, I'm sure.

No, we're just laughing at you ramming your head against the wall. You should get a helmet, but that's your mommy's job.

Get back to Jow Forums we're not done with you just yet.

HAHAHAHAHHA