Not my problem.

>>935936335 (OP)
yeah, fuck private landlords
public housing is the answer

>>935936335 (OP)
It is. You're going to be inconveniencing yourself and others around you, especially if you live in apartments.
>>935936680
>public housing
>now the government is my master/landlord
The way you fix this is by eliminating property tax for each individual citizen for 1 property.
You can own 1 property as a citizen tax free. You buy more properties? then you pay taxes.
If you are a company or business, and truly only own one lot of land, you shouldn't have to pay taxes.
If you are a multi-national corporation owning several properties, you should be taxed, heavily.
...
We could have this, but you instead want to replace one form of cuckoldry with another.

>>935936869
Deep Thoughts from a Shallow Mind®

>>935936869
Gramp.

>>935936899 dubs thoughever
>>935937523
>no rebuttal
>only "you went against my belief system, now i'm going to engage in ad hominem"
You have nothing but petty, impotent rage.
Worthless authoritarians cuckolds you are :^)
I can play too, but you have no counter to my argument,. So cope moar. It's all you have.

>>935936899
you're always saying that like a spammer
it reads as projection
youre the one with a shallow mind and it shows

>>935937599
>>935937624
samefag

>>935937741
>projecting this hard
>still no argument]
I accept your concession/

>>935937764
>I accept your concession
yikes
you aren't American
:*)

>no point made
Until you have an argument you have nothing of interest to me.

>>935937968
talking to anyone in particular?

>who?
You know who. You have no rebuttal or argument worth considering.

>>935938196
tell us all about your "argument worth considering" when all you do is repeat the same nonsense over and over in a single thread

>>935938295
See
>>935936869

Instead of engaging in argumentation, you defaulted to ad hominem fallacy in order to attempt to dismiss the idea.
Why are you even here? Attention? You're basically an e-thot if that is the case.

>>935938393
>you defaulted to ad hominem fallacy
that phrase, I do not think it means what you think it means

>>935938393
is this an "argument worth considering"?

>>935938393
>>935938535
same thread

>>935938501
You used personal insult to try to dismiss the argumentation I presented instead of engaging with the argument itself. That is classic ad hominem. Srceencap related:
>>935938535
>>935938557
It demonstrate your lack of intellect, but I would be willing to bet you're pretty funny too.

>>935936335 (OP)
Logfag spam

Enrage the faggot
Enrage the spammer

>>935938594
>It demonstrate [sic] your lack of intellect,
*you* spamming the same thing 12 times in a single thread demonstrates *my* lack of intellect?
Do go on...

>>935939060
>projecting
I posted one argument. You posted many insults in a bid to subvert said argument, because you have nothing of value to ad either for or against my argumentation.
>y-you dropped the "s" though
You aren't very funny or bright. So what do you have? A typo?
I hope you learn to argue. Less boring that way.

>>935939210
*you* didn't answer the question, so I'll ask it again
How does *you* spamming the same thing 12 times in the same thread demonstrate *my* lack of intellect?

>>935938594
>It demonstrate your lack of intellect
ad hominem, chief

>>935939423
It was an astute observation based on your actions, and I did not use it in order to try to undermine an argument, so it is categorically not a fallacy. Now you're engaging in "no u" more than anything else.

>>935939389
>same thing
You're lying.
I posted one argument.
Spam does not mean what you think it means if you believe it applies here, to me.
That would however apply to whoever is making these unimaginative threads. Possibly (You).

>>935939503
>It was an astute observation based on your actions
>>935936899
ditto

>>935939576
Let me get this straight.
You think posting the same banal phrase 12 times in a single thread is *not* spam?
Seriously?

>>935939576
Shut up log fag
Mods, ban this spamming faggot

>>935939576
>whoever
*whomever

>>935936335 (OP)
That smell will be.

>>935939681
>has nothing to add
>referring to his other comment
>which was engaging in ad hominem fallacy
You're too dumb to be posting here, on /b/, and that's really saying something.
>>935939755 dubs
>>935939771
>>935939781
>You think posting the same banal phrase 12 times in a single thread is *not* spam?
It's what you're doing, and it is spam, but it's not what I am doing. you still haven't made any point. You continue to try to defame instead of arguing.
You lack something. Fix that, or continue coping. It's no bother to me, either way.

I'm not discussing this anymore. This conversation is over.

The conversation never began. All you did was try to dismiss ideas and make false accusations. You failed.

>>935939881
>it's not what I am doing.
it's what you did in the past, or are you going to deny that now?

>>935940144
wrong anon

>>935939881
>>referring to his other comment
>>which was engaging in ad hominem fallacy
Nope.
It was an astute observation based on your post

I won this argument.

>>935940164
No. I presented one argument. You then tried to imply falsehoods and engaged in defamatory claims in order to subvert engagement with said argument.
>>935940178
How so? Prove it.
>>935940218
>no you
Not an argument. you're claiming i am doing what you yourself have been doing.
You really have nothing. You come off as being unintelligent, or fake, like a bot.

>>935940236
You sperged out, then shut down. Well done :^)
You proved how retarded you are here today :)
Feel special yet ?

>>935940280
You're starting to make me angry.

>>935940280
Yikes
You seem upset
I accept your concession
:^)

>>935940315
Try to be less dumb, then. Really, you could be so much more interesting, even as a spammer.
>>935940322 Dubs
>projecting
>"no I won"
You have nothing of value to say, and no point to make. It's very unentertaining.

>>935940270
>>no you
strong argument there Cotton

>>935940416
>unentertaining.
I'm not here to entertain you, loser

>>935940322
logfat

>>935940457
Yikesboi from Krautland

I concede.

>>935940421
I already gave my argument. You ignored it and made things up to cope.
>>935940455
Yet you act like a clown who flunked out of clown-college. Intredasting! :^)
>>935940457
I think you're correct.

>>935940505
Every time he says yikes he's getting boinked up the ass with something lol

>>935940552
lmao

>>935940523
>:^)
fag

>>935940523
>I already gave my argument.
>>935936899
It was an astute observation based on your post

>>935940523
so repetitive you earned your very own meme

>>935940582
So you refer to a post which suits you better than anyone else here? You have no thoughts at all it would seem, and I would say that is indicative of a shallow, petty mind.
>observation
You're only copying my words. I doubt you know what they mean
>>935940642
>low effort copy of text you posted earlier
Cope.

Fuck you.

>>935940687
>You're only copying my words
Brilliant observation!!
It's not ad hominem when you do it, is it?>>935940687
>copy of text
you post it so repetitively (RBS) it's trivial

>No reply
Aaaaaand I win. Thanks for playing.

>>935940767
>>935940912 (Terminally Dumb)
It's only ad hominem when it is used to dismiss or undermine an idea or argument.
That's not being done here by me.
you really seem retarded. Not saying that as an insult, but you fail to grasp any idea or concept correctly.

>>935940967
You aren't as smart as you think I am.

>>935940967
two different anons, retard

>>935940967
>Not saying that as an insult
You're trying too hard

>>935941059
I am myself. I do not measure myself against anyone.
>>935941071
Sure buddy. I won't forget ya'! :^)
>>935941111
Quads checked. It was easy for me, though. I'm just typing whatever comes to mind.

>>935941151
Ok I admit you've beaten me.

>>935941314
there's nothing to win, or lose here, other than precious moments fading like teardrops in the rain.

>>935941151
two stupid too know to anons are making fun of him

>>935941151
>:^)

>>935941842
We are smarter then him

>>935936869
>a company or business
>a multi-national corporation
What if you're just a regular corporation, you know, like most of them? What if I own 3 small donut shops, each in one small adjacent town? What if it's two corporations on one property, like a hotel with a restaurant/bar? What about high-rise office buildings, where every floor is a different business? How do co-ops work? How do multi-practice partnerships work?

Mainly... Why is it always black and white with you commies? It's either you and the ebil gorporations, nothing in between, which is where reality lives.

How about no property tax for anyone, period? My property is unable to pay taxes. I have to put my name on a check and pay it in my property's name, otherwise my property gets kidnapped by the city/county.

>>935936869
Imagine how fucked up and retard you are for real. I'm so pissed our votes are worth the same. I couldn't imagine you (obviously a woman a faggot or a troonack) going to booth and voting and being like this is a good idea to let the government oppress me even farther. 230miles down faggot.

>>935946641
>I'm so pissed our votes are worth the same.
that anon is not American
He's German but won't say if he's a "Sieg Heil" German or a "Allahu Akbar" German

>>935936335 (OP)
>let's totally destroy this thing that has been provided for me
Total niggerfaggot behavior.

>>935945064
If you only own 1 property, you shouldn't have to pay taxes on it. LLC's and subdivisions of larger entities is what I would put stipulations on.
>What if I own 3 small donut shops
those are three distinct properties, and so besides your first property, the other two should be taxed.
>What if it's two corporations on one property, like a hotel with a restaurant/bar?
If they are co-owners of the same property as you imply, but they are two distinct businesses, then they should not have to pay property tax. Other taxes may apply, but the point is to actually recognize property as property.
>What about high-rise office buildings, where every floor is a different business?
>How do co-ops work?
>How do multi-practice partnerships work?
At some point you have to see someone is trying to take advantage of the law which is supposed to guarantee citizens can own property in their own nation.
If businesses are trying to take advantage, they should be blocked from doing so.
The way you describe these scenarios sounds a lot like leases versus lot ownership. It would be much the same as that.
People *could* lease out private land, but there would have to be stipulations of tax-code related to that too. The point is guaranteeing citizens are able to own land in their nation first and foremost.
>black and white with you commies
You're ridiculous, and I specified I am for giving small businesses and even corporations leeway to a degree. the point is to be able to own land in the USA.
As of now, we cannot so that, due to annual property taxes which are applied too broadly.
This is supposed to be for citizens more than corporations and businesses, but it should definitely apply to them as well.
>no property tax for anyone
People would take advantage.
Property taxes should only apply to anything greater than 1 property. If you can afford more than one property, logic dictates you can afford to pay taxes on it. If you only own one property, you shouldn't be taxed.

>>935941842
>>935941875
>>935946641
>>935947348
>>935941963
Samefag. You still don't have anything of value to say.
Inb4 fake screenshots. Enjoy your (You)'s.

>>935945064
To further specify since you're obviously confused or trying to trololol: I do not support communism or authoritarianism in general.
I want to be able to own land in my nation, The United States of America.
I want others to be able to do the same.
That is the intention of my words.

How fucking new are you faggots

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py80DocFeT0

>>935936869
Ignore the haters, your sentiments are admirable. Unfortunately the big elephant in the room is that the multi-nationals aren't actually effected by taxation because they're in league with the banking cabal. The banking cabal literally prints money out of thin air. You just tax them more? They take that money back through charging you more and stealing your spending power via inflation.

Their ultimate goal is that we own nothing and "are happy."

You can't legislate your way out of this. You can't elect the "right guy" because agents of change aren't going to get in and even they are they're going to get compromised or taken out,

Until the prime bad actors are addressed the only thing changes is more assets and wealth slip out of our hands and into theirs.

>>935949951
https://youtu.be/YbEgXNnPWwU?si=CYkq7FVeOOyQ6RJh

>>935950150
if that's true then why do the chuds you watercarry try to stop taxes from going up?

We're going to tax them 60%. And you're going to stfu about it bitch

>>935950150
>multi-nationals aren't actually effected by taxation because they're in league with the banking cabal.
They are effected by taxation to a degree, but true enough. They seem to have many endless loopholes via government connections bought by bribes/donations Etc. Without the ability to own land in my own nation, we are slaves, or something even less.
>The banking cabal literally prints money out of thin air
brbrbrbrbrbrbr
It's a scam. fiat. and usury. and the 'people' who generated the concept of usury.
>You just tax them more?
I think many things need to change. If it were up to me, there would be a separation of corporation and state, along with other amendments expanding on individual privacy while adding transparency to government, making "shady happenings" much less common.
I am not saying much here, because I am only advocating for a redefinition of tax-code/taxes. So we can own land here in the USA.
It would be a compromise on 'their' part at this point in time, to maintain social order.
There must be significant changes made to the system as a whole. You and I know it, but I only wanted to express a basic idea here, and there's a 2000 character limit to deal with.
>Their ultimate goal
It's slavery. Worse than current wageslavery. It involves an elimination of privacy and taxing every action you take.
>You can't legislate your way out of this
It's possible, but things must change first, and for man to change, he needs reason.
>You can't elect the "right guy"
Agreed. That won't solve a thing. They are all playing for the same 'team' no matter what color they wear or don't wear.
>Until the prime bad actors are addressed
People are becoming aware. It looks as though the criminals are attempting to drive us off a cliff in order to have reason, an excuse to impose more draconian "measures" on us, though.
Let's hope it all turns out well in the end.
Also, in case you are not aware this is a bait thread perpetrated by spammers.

*our own nation

>>935948225
Yet you ignore every single thing mentioned. Your shallow thoughts could be put on a bumper sticker. "HuRrrrrr EaT tHe RiCh". As soon as you start with that "muh multinational corpohomo" shit, you become obvious.

>935936899 (You're this post too)
>>935952361
No. I touched on every detail. you failed to interpret it correctly in favor of petty name-calling and dismissal.
You are accusing me of doing what you are doing.
I never said or implied what you're accusing me of. If you cannot read, learn or lurk. You post like a bot, for the fact you cannot interpret words or context properly.

>>935951607
so we are going to start a crusade to take back america from all these other countries? cool.

>>935952752
No. You're too unwilling to interpret what I said in an honest manner. You have the bent of a federal agent who has nothing better to do than try to incite crime.

>>935948107
>Samefag
wrong again, Twinkledick
but your persecution complex is kinda funny

>>935954379
>implying
Anon, we all know your ruse.

>>935952659
>I touched on every detail
>not a single one
We're done here.