Seattle Socialists Strangle Golden Goose

[Kath]

I can't help it if my 'takes' are just too fuckin' hot for this crowd of boring, punk-ass lolbergs.

I give you a dollar and watch you set it on fire. You ask for another dollar and get upset when I won't give it to you. This is your position. Own it.

[Ph64]

I understand what you are saying. I don't think your analogies are convincing.

Okay. Maybe look at it this way.

Seattle: We need to raise taxes to help the homeless. Result of the spend? More homeless
Seattle: We somehow have more homeless than before, so we're going to raise taxes again to help the homeless. Result of the spend? More homeless.
Seattle: We somehow have more homeless than before, so we're going to raise taxes again to help the homeless. Result of the spend? More homeless.
Seattle: We somehow have more homeless than before, so we're going to raise taxes again to help the homeless. Result of the spend? More homeless.

Seattle now: We somehow have more homeless than before, so we're going to raise taxes again to help the homeless. What will the results be? Impossible to know, really, since we've never tried this before.

This is where the wires are getting crossed.

You seem to think that I don't understand that that is how you are looking at this problem.

I have tried to explain how I view the problem, and it hasn't really gotten a lot of converts.

Some of that patented DB sarcasm, which I do always enjoy, though.

Just to summarize though:

1. I view municipal taxes on business as legal, and as nothing more than business overhead, which isn't 'theft from the rich,' since the consumer of the product is freely choosing to purchase said product, and the business is free to leave.

2. There is no silver bullet solution to the problem of homelessness. I am not convinced that the market will just sort it out, even though I understand the theory behind that argument. As such, given the very low investment cost per consumer, I think we tolerate quite a lot of risk with different experimental solutions.

Got it. We'll tax 100% of every businesses profits, raise the minimum wage to $50, and triple property taxes... if the businesses all leave or shut down, so be it. Just because homelessness increases by 5000% as a result isn't a problem, we just need to find more people to tax to "fix" the homeless problem that for some wierd reason keeps getting worse - we're not really sure why our tax & spend "solutions" haven't worked up 'till now, but we're sure they'll work this time.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I can't help it if my 'takes' are just too fuckin' hot for this crowd of boring, punk-ass lolbergs.

I give you a dollar and watch you set it on fire. You ask for another dollar and get upset when I won't give it to you. This is your position. Own it.

According to Adam Smith, money is imaginary.

Not for nothing, but private companies burn money all the time, and we give them more, and rationally, because we understand that loss is a part of the game.

Risk tolerance. Get some. Get rich.

[TheReal_ND]

Okay. Maybe look at it this way.

Seattle: We need to raise taxes to help the homeless. Result of the spend? More homeless
Seattle: We somehow have more homeless than before, so we're going to raise taxes again to help the homeless. Result of the spend? More homeless.
Seattle: We somehow have more homeless than before, so we're going to raise taxes again to help the homeless. Result of the spend? More homeless.
Seattle: We somehow have more homeless than before, so we're going to raise taxes again to help the homeless. Result of the spend? More homeless.

Seattle now: We somehow have more homeless than before, so we're going to raise taxes again to help the homeless. What will the results be? Impossible to know, really, since we've never tried this before.

This is where the wires are getting crossed.

You seem to think that I don't understand that that is how you are looking at this problem.

I have tried to explain how I view the problem, and it hasn't really gotten a lot of converts.

Some of that patented DB sarcasm, which I do always enjoy, though.

Just to summarize though:

1. I view municipal taxes on business as legal, and as nothing more than business overhead, which isn't 'theft from the rich,' since the consumer of the product is freely choosing to purchase said product, and the business is free to leave.

2. There is no silver bullet solution to the problem of homelessness. I am not convinced that the market will just sort it out, even though I understand the theory behind that argument. As such, given the very low investment cost per consumer, I think we tolerate quite a lot of risk with different experimental solutions.

Got it. We'll tax 100% of every businesses profits, raise the minimum wage to $50, and triple property taxes... if the businesses all leave or shut down, so be it. Just because homelessness increases by 5000% as a result isn't a problem, we just need to find more people to tax to "fix" the homeless problem that for some wierd reason keeps getting worse - we're not really sure why our tax & spend "solutions" haven't worked up 'till now, but we're sure they'll work this time.

Look around you. Is the tax policy Anti White? If so, then yes, they are going to try and bilk you for more change. If it supported a White community and their welfare nobody would be arguing about a fucking deficit. You feel me?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Okay. Maybe look at it this way.

Seattle: We need to raise taxes to help the homeless. Result of the spend? More homeless
Seattle: We somehow have more homeless than before, so we're going to raise taxes again to help the homeless. Result of the spend? More homeless.
Seattle: We somehow have more homeless than before, so we're going to raise taxes again to help the homeless. Result of the spend? More homeless.
Seattle: We somehow have more homeless than before, so we're going to raise taxes again to help the homeless. Result of the spend? More homeless.

Seattle now: We somehow have more homeless than before, so we're going to raise taxes again to help the homeless. What will the results be? Impossible to know, really, since we've never tried this before.

This is where the wires are getting crossed.

You seem to think that I don't understand that that is how you are looking at this problem.

I have tried to explain how I view the problem, and it hasn't really gotten a lot of converts.

Some of that patented DB sarcasm, which I do always enjoy, though.

Just to summarize though:

1. I view municipal taxes on business as legal, and as nothing more than business overhead, which isn't 'theft from the rich,' since the consumer of the product is freely choosing to purchase said product, and the business is free to leave.

2. There is no silver bullet solution to the problem of homelessness. I am not convinced that the market will just sort it out, even though I understand the theory behind that argument. As such, given the very low investment cost per consumer, I think we tolerate quite a lot of risk with different experimental solutions.

Got it. We'll tax 100% of every businesses profits, raise the minimum wage to $50, and triple property taxes... if the businesses all leave or shut down, so be it. Just because homelessness increases by 5000% as a result isn't a problem, we just need to find more people to tax to "fix" the homeless problem that for some wierd reason keeps getting worse - we're not really sure why our tax & spend "solutions" haven't worked up 'till now, but we're sure they'll work this time.

Super good numbers. You clearly 'got it.'

At least when DB intentionally misrepresents an argument he is fucking succinct about it. and an extra

[TheReal_ND]

A fucking breadline during the Weimar Republic.

WE CAN DO ANYTHING WHITE FOLKS

[DBTrek]

HM can at least take comfort in knowing he’s only proposed the second-worst socio-economic policy in the thread.

Gotta find those silver linings.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

HM can at least take comfort in knowing he’s only proposed the second-worst socio-economic policy in the thread.

Gotta find those silver linings.

Third worst.

I also supported goat-fucking, but I didn't get any credit for that.

[TheReal_ND]

Anti Whites hate this video

[Ph64]

I think we tolerate quite a lot of risk with different experimental solutions.

I think the point being made is that they haven't been trying "different experimental solutions", they've been trying the same one... "throw money at it just like we have been... free needles, free housing, etc". Where are the new "different" ideas? Sounds like the same old ideas that haven't worked so far to me.

And this famous guy once gave a definition of "insanity"... do you recall what he said?

Or maybe that wasn't "real insanity", and we'll get it right this time?