Not clear at all.

Yes you are. You're making them get a 2nd dummy job so that their real job won't be taxed.

pvn-vs-Goodie is even more entertaining than pvn-vs-suzzer.

Because I don't care what it would be like. I care about the moral problem of forcing people to pay for stuff you want.

I agree, what you're saying doesn't make sense at all. It's not an accurate description of what I'm talking about. I don't "believe in" any such society, since neither of us even knows what that society would look like. So how could I believe in that society?

I'm not proposing any society. Just like the guy who says boat designers should design boats isn't proposing any boat.

What do you mean "you" want? Taxes pay for things that everyone wants. It's not all that taxes pay for but everyone gets something for it. So, you should change the word you to they and it will be more accurate in the context of what you're talking about (i.e. no taxes).

No, taxes do not pay for things that everyone wants, they pay for things that 51% of voters want. And that is questionable since it ignores compromises.

Cool man. That's fine. No taxes. Great idea. Answer this though:

How do you know it's a great idea if you don't know if you'd even like it if implemented?

I've never heard of someone say "I think we should do this but I don't know how to do it nor do I really know what would happen if we did do it nor whether I'd like it if we did."

I guess you can say that but christ, does that really make sense in your head?

I should have been more clear. I'm not going to get into a discussion about what taxes should pay for. Obviously because it's an insanely long discussion that's useless for my argument.

However, you do realize that taxes pay for many things that I would guess more than 95% of the public want (roads, police, fire etc.) I'm sure.

So, what I meant was that everyone has something that they want that taxes pay for.

Sorry, that wasn't clear.

OH I get it now.

As long as you get something then it's justified?

You might be interested in my hotdog club.

Again, you're confused.

I'm suggesting a particular means is objectionable, and you only think about ends.

Apparently not.

haha. Wow dude.

Okay, have it your way. Believe in something that doesn't really exist. I'm going to start believing in unicorns too. I just believe in the idea of them though, not that they actually exist.

Good luck with that thinking.

lol wut

Goodie, do you think murder is morally objectionable?

If so, are you suffering some sort of delusion? Because, hey man, I am not sure how to break this to you, but there is no society free of murder.

It's exhausting proving your analogies wrong all the time.

The difference, of course, is that I can imagine how a society would work without murder and I can even envision why that society would be better than what we currently have.

You can do neither of those things for your ridiculous fairy tale "no taxes" land.

Try again. I'll just prove it wrong again. But you can try.

Whether (you think) you can envision how it works or not is irrelevant when the question is about whether you believe in something that doesn't exist.

keep movin them goalposts.

Haha, this is still going on?

come back in a few days, just let the professionals handle it from here. It's kinda like making sausage, it's best if you don't watch.

It was last night. Pretty sure I'm done now. This is the dumbest discussion I've ever had. I'm arguing with a guy that actually thinks that we should just eliminate taxes immediately but he has no idea how to do that, what the country would be like if we did, or if he'd even like the result of that happening. But somehow he thinks it's a great idea anyway.

I have to believe that the smart people on this forum see that this is a really dumb argument to have and are on my side. I'm assuming that because I'm frequently a jackass on here they just can't bring themselves to support me. I can't imagine anyone thinks he's making any sense.

I don't think my stock market investments should be taxed. My day job is being a pharmacist, stocks are just something I just do on the side for a little bit of extra income fun. Although, I'm not sure I enjoy it enough to reach tax exempt status.

somebody b trolling

I dunno goodie, that time you got all CONFIRMED FURIOUS that there are people out there that love their dogs because you don't understand basic human psychology was pretty dumb.

Wait, who thinks that??? This here pretty much sums up about 90% of your problem, you just fill in blanks with whatever pops into your sweet little head first, and then just work from there.

That people love their dog? Ummm, no. Reading comprehension ftw. I'm not going to go back to that discussion, but maybe you should so you get your facts straight.

As for your other response. For christ's sake, BE CLEAR then. What is it exactly that you want in terms of taxes? What do you want to happen? And try, REALLY TRY, not to deflect again like you always do. Actually answering those questions would serve you well.

Dude, go read the thread, you said yourself that

in reference to a childless woman that calls herself her dog's "mommie". You then went on for about 40 posts about it.

Wait, this is the guy that's like "yeah we need to tax your REAL job but not FUN money" and has absolutely zero idea how to even figure which is which?

Seriously man, I've given you the answers but that thing you do where you just make an assumption then block out everything that doesn't neatly fit into that worldview is making it futile to try to explain anything to you.

Answering your questions is NOT going to serve me well. You're still going to assume whatever you're going to assume, I don't need you to write a letter of recommendation for me, I don't get a bonus check mailed to me (non-taxable fun money obviously) if I successfully jump through whatever ******ed hoops you set up. See, this is that other thing you do where you have this incredibly egocentric world view, people will BE WELL SERVED if they do what goodie wants!

cliffnotes: lol @ u

the problem that neither of you seem to grasp, the elephant in the room if you may, is that, there is no popeyes chicken outside of the states, if there were, it would provide a significant boost to the US economy.

How do you make the jump that I'm pissed that she "loves" her dog? I never said that, never thought that, and was pretty clear that's not what made me angry. Even in the quote above, it's extremely clear that her loving her dog is not what made me mad. I've never had to say this before but this is actually "reading comprehension ftw" on something that you yourself wrote. That's pretty sad man.