You finally managed to make something you thought was an argument, screaming 'socialist'. Are you too thick to realize that pointing out that something not being slavery does not mean that it is desirable?
Slaves didn't have the option of not working, dummy. Because they were owned by others.
If you perform work, and the government takes away all of your income, you work for the government; you do not have the option to not work for the government regardless of who is listed as your employer on your tax documents.
Yes, you do. Namely by not working. As no one would work if 100% of his earnings were to be confiscated. Couldn't figure that out, eh? Never heard of the name Arthur Laffer? I assume even he is outside your lolbertarian echo chamber.
In a 100% income tax (or any crushingly burdensome tax rate) scenario, it is impossible to sustain yourself except by the government's benevolence.
That is not the same as working for the government, nor the same as slavery.
They will be the ones to feed/clothe/house you or mandate that your overseers provide for you. By extension, this means it has power over these privileges.
I'm pretty sure you're just moving the goalposts and that this is not what you initially meant when you screamed 'swavewy' and 'sociawism'. Not to mention that it makes a further assumption, that the governemnt is feeding you, which is not a given. Even were that to be granted, then the government feeding you would be what you call slavery, not the income tax per se. And this also means that people who get food stamps are enslaved. Quite dumb all around, but I don't expect anything else from lolbertarians.
You are de facto owned by the government, even if not explicitly stated de jure.
Are you getting whipped, beaten or killed if you don't work? No. Can the government decide that you're not allowed to marry? No. Can you be sold to another, even worse master? No.
Ergo, you are not enslaved, dummy.
That you couldn't puzzle that out yourself is a testament to how much of a retard you are, you fucking socialist mong.
Yup, that's what I said. Because that's not what slavery is, you low IQ moron.
You finally managed to make something you thought was an argument, screaming 'socialist'. Are you too thick to realize that pointing out that something not being slavery does not mean that it is desirable?
Slaves didn't have the option of not working, dummy. Because they were owned by others.
Yes, you do. Namely by not working. As no one would work if 100% of his earnings were to be confiscated. Couldn't figure that out, eh? Never heard of the name Arthur Laffer? I assume even he is outside your lolbertarian echo chamber.
That is not the same as working for the government, nor the same as slavery.
I'm pretty sure you're just moving the goalposts and that this is not what you initially meant when you screamed 'swavewy' and 'sociawism'. Not to mention that it makes a further assumption, that the governemnt is feeding you, which is not a given. Even were that to be granted, then the government feeding you would be what you call slavery, not the income tax per se. And this also means that people who get food stamps are enslaved. Quite dumb all around, but I don't expect anything else from lolbertarians.
Are you getting whipped, beaten or killed if you don't work? No. Can the government decide that you're not allowed to marry? No. Can you be sold to another, even worse master? No.
Ergo, you are not enslaved, dummy.
Do you even know what a socialist is? Dimwit.