anonymous asked:

how do you feel about socialism/communism?

I’m one of those people who agrees with almost every individual point made by socialism, but is put off by the broader movement. In particular I despise their hatred of what they would call the “Establishment.” Nationalised healthcare, post, rail, even oil, yes. A low military budget in peacetime, yes. Higher taxation for higher public spending, yes. Good benefits and a reasonable immigration policy, yes. But keep all the “revolutionary” baggage out of it. 

As for Communism, I don’t think much of those who say that a movement that caused tens of millions of deaths across the globe for almost a century was “implemented wrong.” I’ll leave it at that.

Obama vs. Romney on tax rates: As you can see, rates are largely the same—except for the nation’s richest and poorest. The poor would pay almost twice as much in taxes under Romney’s plan; meanwhile, the very richest in the country would be forced to cough up about 10% more of their income under Obama. The net effect? In short, Romney’s plan would reduce federal revenues to about 17% of GDP—down .9% from where they are now. Obama’s budget would raise revenues 19.2%, with most of that money coming from those making over $250,000 a year (Graphic and data courtesy of The Washington Post / Tax Policy Center).


Why do you need ‘X’?

Note: A newer version of this poster set is available.

I put these together after seeing a rather good quotable line on Tumblr in response to the “why do you need guns” question. I added my own twist to it with the first aid quip. These questions get to the heart of the issue at hand: Whose life is it anyway? If your life belongs to you, then you are free to decide how you deal with emergencies such as fire, injury, or crime is in your hands and no one has the right to take that away from you. If your life does not belong to you, then you are a slave whose life is in the hands of agents of the state. These agents have no interest in keeping you alive, or your possessions safe, beyond what they can extract from you through the force or fraud of state power, namely taxation.

That’s a great fucking question.

And to everyone else who reblogged and added a comment with a lesson in economics, that’s not the point of this post. We all know more money = inflation, but that obviously doesn’t stop the statists. The point is there is no need for taxation when the government is 16 trillion in debt and is never going to stop. It’s all just a sham. But keep clinging to the notion that if we just get back on the gold standard and control the money supply everything will magically be fixed. Economics is bunk because we live on a planet with finite resources, and we have a system predicated upon infinite growth. If all you’re trying to figure out is how we can develop new ways to maintain our hydrocarbon-dependent infrastructure and feed 7 billion people, in a few years you’ll be facing the same problems, only compounded by a higher demand for hydrocarbons and a couple billion more mouths to feed. The entire system needs to be tossed out. We fucked up. 

A basic economic principle is government ought to tax what we want to discourage, and not tax what we want to encourage.

For example, if we want less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we should tax carbon polluters. On the other hand, if we want more students from lower-income families to be able to afford college, we shouldn’t put a tax on student loans.

Sounds pretty simple, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, congressional Republicans are intent on doing exactly the opposite.

Earlier this year the Republican-led House passed a bill pegging student-loan interest rates to the yield on the 10-year Treasury note, plus 2.5 percentage points. “I have very little tolerance for people who tell me that they graduate with $200,000 of debt or even $80,000 of debt because there’s no reason for that,” Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), the co-sponsor of the GOP bill, said.

Republicans estimate this will bring in around $3.7 billion of extra revenue, which will help pay down the federal debt.

In other words, it’s a tax — and one that hits lower-income students and their families.


Robert Reich on Why Republicans Want to Tax Students. It blows my mind that so few people are discussing this. Out of all of my Facebook friends, 98% of which would fall under the low to middle income levels, I’ve seen this topic mentioned only once between posts on the weather and pleas for lives on Candy Crush.

I’ve said it before: an increase in student loan interest rates is simple taxation under a different name… and it only affects the lower and middle classes, because wealthy people don’t need to take out student loans.

Five years of bitching and editorials and rallies by Republicans and Tea Partiers over all of President Obama’s plans that would “raise taxes” - and  this actual tax increase (that only includes the lower and middle classes) dwarfs them all.

Yet, either nobody seems to notice or we’re all too ignorant to care. 

The scope of the mainstream media’s dialogue regarding this issue is so narrowly focused it concerns me…..hmmm I wonder why their scope of discussion is so narrow? Could it be their funders?!

Seven MORE Things You Need To Know About Anarchism

Buy Poster | More Posters

In keeping with my current theme of remaking/remixing stuff from the past, this is something I based on a poster someone made after they saw the original poster (which I recently remade).

10 Big Companies That Pay No Taxes (and Their Favorite Politicians) | Mother Jones

Between 2008 and 2011, 26 major American corporations paid no net federal income taxes despite bringing in billions in profits, according to a new report (PDF) from the nonprofit research group Citizens for Tax Justice. CTJ calculates that if the companies had paid the full 35 percent corporate tax rate, they would have put more than $78 billion into government coffers.

Here’s a look at the 10 most profitable tax evaders and the politicians their CEOs, employees, and PACs give the most money to.

Verizon Communications
Profits: $19.8 billion    Effective tax rate: -3.8%

Top recipients, 2011-2012
President Barack Obama: $51,493
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.): $24,450
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): $23,700
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio): $22,500
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.): $15,000

General Electric 
Profits: $19.6 billion    Effective tax rate: -18.9%

Top recipients, 2011-2012
Mitt Romney: $53,750
President Barack Obama (D): $30,493
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.): $23,900
Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.): $21,860
Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.): $19,750

Profits: $14.8 billion    Effective tax rate: -5.5%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.): $31,750
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.): $25,000
Former Sen. George Allen (R-Va.): $23,500
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.): $23,125
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas): $20,986

NextEra Energy: North America’s largest solar and wind power operator, based in Florida
Profits: $8.8 billion    Effective tax rate: -2%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
George LeMieux (R-Fla.): $9,500
Mike Haridopolos (R-Fla.): $4,800
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.): $2,000
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas): $2,000
Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.): $2,000

American Electric Power: Electric utility based in Columbus, Ohio
Profits: $8.2 billion    Effective tax rate: -6.4%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio): $34,750
Rep. Steve Stivers (R-Ohio): $34,050
Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio): $21,700
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.): $19,750
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio): $18,450

Pacific Gas & Electric: California electrical utility
Profits: $6 billion    Effective tax rate: -8.4%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
President Barack Obama (D): $6,250
Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.): $5,000
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.): $5,500
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.): $5,000
Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.): $3,500

Apache: Houston-based oil and gas company
Profits: $6 billion    Effective tax rate: -0.3%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
David Dewhurst (R-Texas): $25,000
Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.): $5,000
Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.): $2,500 
Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas): $2,500
Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas): $2,500
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): $2,500
Brendan Doherty (R-R.I.): $2,500

Consolidated Edison: New York energy company
Profits: $5.9 billion    Effective tax rate: -1.3%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.): $15,050
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.): $8,000
Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.): $6,650
Then-Rep. David Wu (D-Ore.): $2,500
Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.): $1,500
Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.): $1,500
Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.): $1,500

El Paso: Houston-based energy company that operates the country’s largest natural gas pipeline
Profits: $4.6 billion    Effective tax rate: -0.9%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
David Dewhurst (R-Texas): $7,500
Mitt Romney (R): $5,000
Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.): $3,000
Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.): $2,750
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.): $2,500 
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.): $2,500 
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): $2,500 
Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas): $2,500
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.): $2,500
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.): $2,500

CenterPoint Energy: Electric and gas utility company based in Houston
Profits: $3.1 billion    Effective tax rate: -11.3%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
David Dewhurst (R-Texas): $22,050
Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas): $13,458
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): $10,299
Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.): $7,000
Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas): $4,000

Giving data from the Center for Responsive Politics. Includes all 2011-12 campaign donations from each company’s employees and corporate PACs.

(Photo Credit: JD Hancock/Flickr)

New IRS rule: Businesses are not allowed to say that they laid off employees because of Obamacare


It could be stated, without hyperbole, that this should be considered outrageous by every American, regardless of political leanings. Hidden in all the hullabaloo surrounding the unconstitutional move by President Obama to literally rewrite existing law by picking and choosing how he will enforce it, is the fact that the IRS will now require businesses to swear, under threat of perjury, that any downsizing they might have had to do throughout the year was not due to Obamacare…even if it was. Un. Be. Lievable.

From Fox News:

Is the latest delay of ObamaCare regulations politically motivated? Consider what administration officials announcing the new exemption for medium-sized employers had to say about firms that might fire workers to get under the threshold and avoid hugely expensive new requirements of the law. Obama officials made clear in a press briefing that firms would not be allowed to lay off workers to get into the preferred class of those businesses with 50 to 99 employees. How will the feds know what employers were thinking when hiring and firing? Simple. Firms will be required to certify to the IRS – under penalty of perjury – that ObamaCare was not a motivating factor in their staffing decisions. To avoid ObamaCare costs you must swear that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCare costs. You can duck the law, but only if you promise not to say so.

Read the Rest

Let’s sum this up. Obamacare forces individuals and companies to provide costly health insurance for their employees. Any company not doing this will be penalized, er, “taxed” for non-compliance. This mandated insurance purchase, which has already begun for individuals, was supposed to have already started for companies too, but was unconstitutionally delayed twice by Obama (remember, he’s not a king. He doesn’t get to even change a misplaced comma in a law passed by Congress).

The problem, however, is that the administration knew for a fact (it is an unavoidable fact) that businesses were going to adjust their hiring and firing to minimize the damage done by the new Obamacare penalties and regulations just like they do for every other government regulation and tax. And since companies that employ between 50 and 99 people will be exempt from the penalty for another year, they have a huge incentive to keep the number of people they employ at under 100. In other words, if a company employs 99 people, they would be crazy to hire anyone because they would then be subject to all the regulations, taxes and other red tape that accompanies Obamacare. Similarly, if a company employs, say, 106 people, that company has a massive incentive to fire 7 people in order to get its number of employees below the arbitrary 100 mark.

Businesses must consider taxes and regulations when making financial decisions. This should be obvious to even the most economic illiterate among us. But here’s the rub, the Obama administration doesn’t want Obamacare blamed for the high unemployment rate and lingering sluggish economy…even though it IS to blame. So they came up with a wonderfully awful plan to avoid this: don’t allow businesses to say that Obamacare was the reason they fired/did’t hire employees…even if it was the reason. If this isn’t totalitarianism, I don’t know what is. The government hands down burdensome regulations to companies and forces them to lie about how it affects them. Joseph Stalin himself couldn’t have thought of a better solution to this problem.

I honestly don’t know how even the most ardent Obama supporter could possibly defend this.