-->
@3RU7AL
What do you mean by "personal sovereignty" and "personal privacy"? Sounds like an abortion argument.
My Youtube channel
Posts
Total:
93
-->
@3RU7AL
If you eliminated property taxes, landlords would simply pocket the extra money and continue to raise rents every single year like they always do anyway.
If landlords were required to reduce their prices by the property tax amount, then it basically saves the poor person money. The hard part would be forcing them to do it, but companies often obey the law, otherwise many legal workers would get paid less than minimum wage.
-->
@Alec
Do you accept that you are advocating for rent control?If landlords were required to reduce their prices by the property tax amount, then it basically saves the poor person money. The hard part would be forcing them to do it, but companies often obey the law, otherwise many legal workers would get paid less than minimum wage.
-->
@Alec
If landlords were required to reduce their prices by the property tax amount, then it basically saves the poor person money. The hard part would be forcing them to do it, but companies often obey the law, otherwise many legal workers would get paid less than minimum wage.
Yeah, but then (without a real-estate tax) how would the government steal land from poor people?
-->
@3RU7AL
Yeah, but then (without a real-estate tax) how would the government steal land from poor people?
Eminent domain, duh!
The SCOUTS ruled economic development is reasonable grounds. Just say you will send in rich people that will spend more, and you can steal those peasants' land likity split!
-->
@bmdrocks21
The problem with corruption in Mexico is that there is selective enforcement
As it is everywhere. Surprise righty!
-->
@disgusted
Selective enforcement is bad. It is really bad in Mexico. What is your point, exactly?
-->
@bmdrocks21
I find explanations wasted on the right.
-->
@disgusted
I find that explanations are very sparingly provided by the left.
-->
@bmdrocks21
See post #68 for clarity.
-->
@disgusted
Thanks for proving my point, bro.
-->
@3RU7AL
I think you fail to realize most of the people who come to the US don't understand free markets or capitalism. Most come with the idea that they will be taken care of and given free stuff, which by all accounts is true. Living on American welfare pays 20 times what they lived on before they came. Get rid of all welfare for immigrants for the first ten years and we can talk about opening boarders.
-->
@sadolite
I completely agree that we need to make immigrants wait at least 5-10 years before qualifying for welfare. However, that only solves the economic issue of immigration. The other problem is that these immigrants aren't assimilating. We have these Mexican enclaves where they only speak Spanish and never really interact with Americans outside of there. We need to work on assimilating immigrants before we let more in since most don't share American values.
-->
@bmdrocks21
So labor union members are just slaves to whatever the Democrats say?
They aren't slaves, but the leaders of the unions tend to be overwhelmingly democratic. This is coming from my Dad, who is a treasurer for a union. Saying that unions are left is like saying Canada is left. There are right leaning members in both Canada and in Unions. Although Trump was much more anti-illegal immigration then Romney, Trump´s advantage could be due to him having an easier candidate then Romney. Obama was a stronger candidate than Hillary. If Trump was running against Obama, I doubt he would have done as well amongst union members then Romney.
Pretending that union households don't care about immigration because the Democrats don't is just plain incorrect.
The democratic position is they want a pathway to citizenship for illegals instead of deporting them, they denounce open borders.
it never calls for a theocracy in which you force you religious views upon others in your country.
Remember that when you reference other issues, like homoseuality. My thought process is a lot of right wingers are against homosexuality for example solely because of the bible. If that´s true, they should be consistent and support the bible on left wing beliefs, like easier immigration restrictions.
Could you cite a quote about that in the New Testament in case I am unaware?
Matthew 25:35- ¨I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.¨ This is the bible saying to be welcome to immigrants. The bible does not specify legal or illegal. Otherwise, the bible would say here, ¨I was a warranted stranger and you welcomed me¨
There are hiring caps based on the company's available capital.
If there is a company whose job it is to build buildings for example, then the more hands they have working, it would cost more at once, but since the job gets done quicker, it costs about the same. Then, they can build more buildings quicker, generating more profit. The worker benefits because they have more union members that can negotiate for some of that success and/or a higher salary.
If you have too many people working on a task, it becomes less efficient.
Then the workers could do multiple tasks at once. If it takes 60 workers some time to make 2 houses, and 30 more immigrants get added to the mix, the company would have them work on a 3rd house, making the company money.
Let us assume you are right on the Latin America thing, you are just proving that if we allow any foreigners in, they will irreparably alter our culture.
They will assiliminate on their own. When we had practically open borders with Europe, the immigrants started off not assiliminated, but they assiliminated as time went on. Them having kids sped up the assimilation process. And then Italian Americans acted more American than Italian, with way more Italin-Americans knowing English than Italin. We are seeing this trend in the Hispanic community: https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2015/05/12/english-proficiency-on-the-rise-among-latinos/. They just need more time. I think we as Americans can play the long game.
You would have to assume two outrageous things to say that these immigrants will assimilate like the old European immigrants: (1) that our political, social, economic, and cultural climate is exactly the same as it used to be when we took those European immigrants long ago
At the time when we took in the European immigrants, Europe and America were very different. Europe had war and disunification. America had peace and unification. Most of the European immigrants were Catholic, America was protestant. Europe was protectionist, America wasn´t.
If you consider that Hispanics vote 69% Democrat, I don't know how you think your Libertarian views will fly when you let in the entire third-world below our border.
Libertarians want people to lift themselves out of poverty. This can be done by HS degree Hispanics getting a job that only requires a HS degree.
In your opinion, will more Hispanics be able to afford to cross our southern border or will more Africans be able to cross an entire ocean without any money?
Both Hispanics and Africans have a comparable GDP per capita and they both (for the most part) have water to cross. For Africans, it´s the Atlantic Ocean. For Hispanics, it´s the gulf of Mexico, with the exception of some mexicans, most of whom live in the southern portion of the country. Both groups will have a huge distance to travel to get to the US.
They have a lot of economic and political freedom, as well.So does some of Latin America.No, not really.
Latin America has separation of church and state(social freedom), they have elections(political freedom) and they for the most part don´t have communism(economic freedom). However, if an area lacks these things, like China, then chinese immigrants would be fleeing China since they don´t like Chinese values and would accept American ones, which is what happens on it´s own. When immigrants are from a good country, they bring American like values to the US. When Immigrants are from bad countries, they are fleeing those shithole country values and they are accepting American ones.
I don't think that poor people are poor simply because of their mindset.
I think they are poor because they don´t know how to get out of the situation.
And when you inevitably drive down their wages by letting in tens of millions of low-wage immigrants that take all of the jobs that don't require a college degree
The immigrants can´t take jobs from people if the businesses don´t have caps. I don´t think businesses have caps because of what history confirms.
1) In the 1860s, a fear of letting backs work was they would take jobs/wages from white people. Did this happen? No.
2) In the 1940s, a fear of letting women work was they would take jobs/wages from men. Did the unemployment rate rise to over 50%? No.
Why didn't unemployment skyrocket during these times? Because businesses don't have caps and can hire as many people as that apply for that job. Will businesses have caps for people now? No. There are enough jobs for everybody.
Hope you mean to say you would use a euphemism not "euthanize" lol.
I wanted to use the verb for euphemism. I don't know what that is. I did my best.
But you just said that union people vote based on what Democrats say, now you are saying people's minds can be changed regardless of party?
Union people generally, not always, but generally vote democratic because the democrats seem to have a better plan to fix their important issue; pay for the common worker. When I said that the union votes democratic, I was generalizing. If my plan gives them a better salary (which I think it does), and they hear it, then I predict a lot of union members would vote for me if I ran for POTUS.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Some rent control is necessary, but I wouldn´t go overboard with it. Otherwise, there would be less incentive to rent out properties and to own more than 1 place to live. Less landlords, less opportunity for tenants.
-->
@3RU7AL
Yeah, but then (without a real-estate tax) how would the government steal land from poor people?
Why should the government steal land from poor people?
-->
@Alec
Some rent control is necessary
What do you mean by some?
-->
@Alec
Yeah, but then (without a real-estate tax) how would the government steal land from poor people?Why should the government steal land from poor people?
Isn't that the whole point of real-estate taxes?
It's a power-grab by the government that forces you to pay them rent, which makes the state the de facto land owner.
If private citizens could actually own a piece of land, and nobody could forcibly take it away, well, that would be "total anarchy"...
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Unsure. It depends heavily on the property. If the place is good, I would allow more rent then if the place is terrible. I don't think of this so my answers are on the spot, but I´d rather make sure the price gets approved by someone before rent is allowed.What do you mean by some?
-->
@3RU7AL
The point is to pay for government services. I´d rather raise the money by different ways.Isn't that the whole point of real-estate taxes?
If private citizens could actually own a piece of land, and nobody could forcibly take it away, well, that would be "total anarchy"...
How so? In anarchy, there is no government. I don't agree with anarchy. I agree with a small government, that only punishes people for things involving an unjustified victim.
-->
@Alec
If someone actually owned their own land, they could grant asylum to criminals.
-->
@3RU7AL
They don´t own their land as a country. They own it as private property. Therefore they would be prohibited from harboring criminals from the law.
-->
@Alec
So if the place is good people should buy it instead of renting it, Why?Unsure. It depends heavily on the property. If the place is good, I would allow more rent then if the place is terrible. I don't think of this so my answers are on the spot, but I´d rather make sure the price gets approved by someone before rent is allowed.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I encourage people to get on a pathway towards buying their own home, but I wouldn't force it. I don´t want to pay all these rental fees and would rather eventually own my own home.So if the place is good people should buy it instead of renting it, Why?
-->
@Alec
I encourage people to get on a pathway towards buying their own home, but I wouldn't force it. I don´t want to pay all these rental fees and would rather eventually own my own home.
Do you understand that buying a home is one of the worst financial decisions you make in your entire life?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Why?
-->
@Alec
It's not ownership if it's not sovereign.They don´t own their land as a country. They own it as private property. Therefore they would be prohibited from harboring criminals from the law.
Imagine that you bought a car from me, but you still had to pay me a percentage of its market value to me every year.
Imagine that I could enter your car on a whim and search it (and confiscate the contents) whenever I wanted (with flimsy unverifiable probable cause like an anonymous tip) or whenever I though it looked suspicious.
Imagine that I could take your car and give it to someone else at any moment under something called "eminent domain".
Would you feel like you owned that car?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The article states pros and cons to buying. One pro was that it would prevent rent hikes.
-->
@3RU7AL
Imagine that you bought a car from me, but you still had to pay me a percentage of its market value to me every year.
I don't approve of the property tax. I´d rather have a sales tax on the house. Taxes are a necessary evil to pay for stuff, but I would want a sales tax to pay for everything instead of an income tax.
Imagine that I could enter your car on a whim and search it (and confiscate the contents) whenever I wanted (with flimsy unverifiable probable cause like an anonymous tip) or whenever I though it looked suspicious.
I don´t approve of this in the vast majority of situations.
Imagine that I could take your car and give it to someone else at any moment under something called "eminent domain".
In eminent domain, you are paid a fair price for your property. I don't agree with eminent domain though, although if the person consents to it being sold, it´s fine.