Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez suggests up to 70% tax on the wealthy

Sep 2, 2018
147
49
185
27
I'm not a fan for ultra(!) high taxes for people earning a lot of money. Love it or hate it, but it collides with the principle of merit our lives are built on.
A State should look at the well-being of the society as a whole, not at the well-being of ultra-rich people. At a certain point, money earned are not an indicator of merits.
 
Oct 24, 2017
6,383
5,480
335
Imagine being brainwashed to the point that you don't want to tax the rich more, while average people live pay check to pay check.
Why? Everyone should pay the same percentage of taxes. The problem are thousands of loopholes that need to be fixed. Having higher taxes will do not much at all since here are still these loopholes left people will use to pay as less as possible.
 
Feb 2, 2018
438
383
225
No, ultra high taxes are not necessary if the system is working correctly, but utilizing tax loopholes for decades for massive capital gains while offsetting any tax burden before having to pay up, then using more loopholes to get out of paying the taxes when due is a huge problem. And the system currently allows that.
That's true and i agree, but that's another problem which should be fixed before they come up with other things.


A State should look at the well-being of the society as a whole, not at the well-being of ultra-rich people. At a certain point, money earned are not an indicator of merits.
True, but i don't see any connection here (regarding taxes). We don't need someone who decides about taxes based on merits.


Imagine being brainwashed to the point that you don't want to tax the rich more, while average people live pay check to pay check.
Imagine being so uneducated to the point you don't want to acknowledge well-known facts.

Top 20% of americans pay 87% of the income taxes (https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-americans-will-pay-87-of-income-tax-1523007001).
Top 3% paid the majority of income taxes in 2016 (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...xpayers-paid-majority-of-income-taxes-in-2016).
 
Last edited:
Likes: BlueAlpaca
Jun 13, 2007
7,084
108
995
Didn't they try something like this in France, like anything over 1 million was taxed 90% and it failed horribly?

Another thing, the only real people it would hurt are small to medium business that yes do make a good amount money, but are in no way these elite business whos revenue are in the 100 millions to Billions and have ways to just move their cash around like they already do.
 
Apr 18, 2018
7,731
12,322
555
USA
dunpachi.com
I love politicians who promise hefty taxes on the rich as if that will solve anything.

These "progressive" politicians could... you know... pass laws to enable card check. They could work with local communities to bring the workers together. They could work with businesses to promote local employment and education. They could work with local trade schools and universities for better job training.

That would require them to actually care about education as a means for self-determination instead of leveraging it to push their ideology and to push entry-level skill training on behalf of corporations. That would require them to engage with unions and cooperate with them instead of snubbing them at every turn.

Nah, that would take work. Better to just rile up the stupid masses with promises of cashing in on the hard work of those evil rich-folk.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,918
3,856
460
Nah, that would take work. Better to just rile up the stupid masses with promises of cashing in on the hard work of those evil rich-folk.
Well, there really isn't much hard work in mooching off other people's labor, and there are plenty of moochers who are ultra wealthy.
 
Last edited:
Apr 18, 2018
7,731
12,322
555
USA
dunpachi.com
Well, there really isn't much hard work in mooching off other people's labor, and there are plenty of moochers who are ultra wealthy.
I would argue that's a different issue with a different solution. I can understand the moral reasons as to why the rich don't deserve it because they didn't work hard for it, either. This moral stance is as old as human history. Every society has suffered through rich, lazy, self-important bums who sponged off their underlings.

However, I haven't found a solution that respects the laws of property ownership for poor/middle class citizens while at the same time "fairly" taking it away from the rich. We already do kind of deal with this through inheritance taxes, but the ultra-wealthy are usually able to dodge that sort of stuff, too.
 

Mihos

Gold Member
May 10, 2009
5,487
480
800
steamcommunity.com
You want to explain to me how you think a US citizen, paying US income tax, is going to not pay that tax without physically leaving the US and giving up US citizenship?

The us government requires it citizens to file and pay taxes even on non US earnings, and to pay the difference between local tax and us tax rates.

If that was possible people would doing it now, you wouldn’t need to consider a hypothetical 70% tax rate.
The exact way they do it now. Their 'income', or what they pay themselves is very small. Everything else is done through capital gains management or dividends which are taxed at the corporate tax rate. We do something similar with some rental properties under an LLC, of course on a much, much smaller scale. They pay very little in income tax, because very little of their money comes from 'income'. Corporate taxes are a much harder fight. Raise it too high, and there is no incentive to invest in the US, look at the fights in the last few years to combat corporate tax inversion and profit shifting. It is also why we lowered the corporate tax down to the 21% it is now.

There are also tons of borrowing tactics through stock options that avoid even the capital gains tax at a personal level. All the while, they can stay at any one of their villas in any country they feel like whether it is in California or Tuscany.
 
Likes: Bolivar687

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,918
3,856
460
I would argue that's a different issue with a different solution. I can understand the moral reasons as to why the rich don't deserve it because they didn't work hard for it, either. This moral stance is as old as human history. Every society has suffered through rich, lazy, self-important bums who sponged off their underlings.

However, I haven't found a solution that respects the laws of property ownership for poor/middle class citizens while at the same time "fairly" taking it away from the rich. We already do kind of deal with this through inheritance taxes, but the ultra-wealthy are usually able to dodge that sort of stuff, too.
Adam Smith identified these types as rentiers. Parasites. Bad for the capitalistic economic engine. Somehow the Freidman Neo-classical types decided they were a good thing for the economy and shit spiraled out of control.
 
Apr 18, 2018
7,731
12,322
555
USA
dunpachi.com
Adam Smith identified these types as rentiers. Parasites. Bad for the capitalistic economic engine. Somehow the Freidman Neo-classical types decided they were a good thing for the economy and shit spiraled out of control.
I take no issue with that.

But what's the solution? How can we simultaneously encourage entrepreneurship, invention, and passion to create wealth when there is an upper cap to how much wealth you can acquire?

We will end up with a chabuduo society like modern China. I view "rentiers" as a natural consequence of individual freedom and minimal market interference. Ancient societies actually placed religious laws on these sort of issues to establish the moral problem of free commerce. With the ebb of religious influence over the West during the past 150 years, is it any surprise that the behavior surfaces?
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,918
3,856
460
I take no issue with that.

But what's the solution? How can we simultaneously encourage entrepreneurship, invention, and passion to create wealth when there is an upper cap to how much wealth you can acquire?

We will end up with a chabuduo society like modern China. I view "rentiers" as a natural consequence of individual freedom and minimal market interference. Ancient societies actually placed religious laws on these sort of issues to establish the moral problem of free commerce. With the ebb of religious influence over the West during the past 150 years, is it any surprise that the behavior surfaces?
Well, there is an upper cap as to how much wealth you acquire already. You reach it the day you die.

If you are going to be taking rents, then you deserve to be taxed accordingly. Taxing rentiers at a fair rate isn't capping the max they can make. It is just making sure they aren't gaming the system solely for their benefit.
 
Apr 18, 2018
7,731
12,322
555
USA
dunpachi.com
Well, there is an upper cap as to how much wealth you acquire already. You reach it the day you die.

If you are going to be taking rents, then you deserve to be taxed accordingly. Taxing rentiers at a fair rate isn't capping the max they can make. It is just making sure they aren't gaming the system solely for their benefit.
What can be done to ensure they don't pass that expense directly on to their tenants?
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
2,287
767
470
Firstly, someone who is 29 years old should not be qualified to lead any political representation.
Not really true. if the person is smart, went into politics, campaigned/helped others campaigns, and got strong connections since like 21-22 than by 27-29 they can have a wealth of experience and understanding.

issue with her is she was a bartenders, and wasn't very smart to being with and won a state due to it being an easy win and only like 5% of registered voters even voted in her election. not to mention a lot of her politics are from fringe loonies that are part of the DSA. She basically knows nothing about politics otherwise.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,918
3,856
460
What can be done to ensure they don't pass that expense directly on to their tenants?
Well, stop letting them bribe the invisible hand for one. When you can lobby with practically unlimited budget for preferential regulatory treatment, they can do those things.
 
Apr 18, 2018
7,731
12,322
555
USA
dunpachi.com
Well, stop letting them bribe the invisible hand for one. When you can lobby with practically unlimited budget for preferential regulatory treatment, they can do those things.
I'd be fine with a crackdown on that, or at least transparency.

Heck, let the businesses do it if they want. Just keep the politicians more accountable so that we can vote them out each time. Citizens don't know/don't care and won't vote accordingly.
 
Jun 18, 2018
161
56
195
I'd be fine with a crackdown on that, or at least transparency.

Heck, let the businesses do it if they want. Just keep the politicians more accountable so that we can vote them out each time. Citizens don't know/don't care and won't vote accordingly.
Politicians should , like sports teams wear their corporate and private sponsorships on their clothes. That way everybody knows who’s interests they represent, and who payed for their office.
 
Nov 12, 2009
9,990
792
720
I find targeting of the wealthy is a poor way to find a solution for a greater problem and only allows the problems to get bigger and not addressing the true issue. The money will go back into a machine that isn't going to produce for the general populace which it is intended on helping. Smaller government forces the adversity within the system for improvement. Always against bigger government. Especially something as crazy as forcing more money into a broken system.
 
Mar 4, 2014
1,511
180
380
One thing that rarely gets mentioned is how disingenuous this whole "tax the rich" issue is. We can argue over whether or not the rich "deserve" what they have. I personally don't think we have a right to place a cap or limit on success but I know plenty of people disagree.

With that said, "tax the rich" is effective because the overwhelming majority of us aren't rich and never will be rich. Therefore, it doesn't affect us right, so screw em! This is the part that is so disingenuous. Look at the main policy proposals of the progressive wing of the Democrats: Medicare for All, free college, student loan forgiveness, mandatory family leave, and universal basic income. Just Medicare for All and UBI would cost 3 trillion plus EACH a year (so at least 6 trillion combined), which doesn't even account for the other policies like free college/family leave and so on. Total government spending is already around 4 trillion, and we already run huge deficits, so it's a pipe dream to think that all of this additional needed revenue to pay for these programs is going to come from the rich.

Nope, that money is coming from ALL of us, including the working and middle class. Of course, they can't tell you that or people will tell them to shove it. So instead, the Democrats continue to sell this fantasy that if we just made the rich "pay their fair share" all of these astronomically expensive pie in the sky programs will be implemented convincing people it will never affect them. What a scam.
 

kiunchbb

www.dictionary.com
Aug 6, 2009
5,621
26
790
A State should look at the well-being of the society as a whole, not at the well-being of ultra-rich people. At a certain point, money earned are not an indicator of merits.
The well being of the people is drive by private investment. Rich don't accumulate wealth in a safe, money are invested in businesses and funds that drives Small business. More money for social program mean will increase living standard for the poor, but in return it will reduce opportunities and innovation for everyone.

Who do you think will lend new business owner millions of dollars for good innovative ideas? Private wealth pay a critical part in creating new job and industry, it is not something that government can replace. Huge corporation already maintained a monopoly so there are no reason for them to reinvent themselves.

New ideas are always from private investors looking/gambling for the next Google or Amazon. People are willing to lose all their money over and over again in risky project just so they can have a chance for the next big hits.

Increasing certain income tax to 70% will destroy any incentive for small risky investment, because the the risk will remain the same, but the return is much smaller. Do you want to have a bigger foodstamp, or do you want more jobs?

The article did not mention they talking about income tax or investment tax, but I assume they mean both. Since the rich made majority of money from investment, it will be meaningless just increase income tax but not the investment portion.
 
Sep 4, 2018
2,382
2,609
255
tbh i could not care less where the money for "astronomically expensive pie in the sky programs" come from. we already found the money for similar programs The War on Terror and Baby Daddy's Infinite Bank Bailout and Poor Auto Industry Wants to Be Shit But Still Get Free Money

the rich are the ones suckling from the gov't teat in those cases. they have demonstrated that yes there is infinite money.

about time we get some teats for ourselves. whether or not one tax bracket results in the exact money covering every entitlement ever is entirely irrelevant and a distraction.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Cybrwzrd
Feb 25, 2017
309
331
230
tbh i could not care less where the money for "astronomically expensive pie in the sky programs" come from. we already found the money for similar programs The War on Terror and Baby Daddy's Infinite Bank Bailout and Poor Auto Industry Wants to Be Shit But Still Get Free Money

the rich are the ones suckling from the gov't teat in those cases. they have demonstrated that yes there is infinite money.

about time we get some teats for ourselves. whether or not one tax bracket results in the exact money covering every entitlement ever is entirely irrelevant and a distraction.
What a lot of people don't realize is that the "rich" are already paying more than their fair share. They have been shouldering the majority of the income tax burden after all. Any family who receives free or reduce lunch is basically not paying any income tax at all and they gain more than they put in. I think many people living in urban areas(especially those without salary jobs)fall into this category. They don't understand what monetary "rich" is and they also assume its the billionaire fatcat not giving them their fair share.

If a family of 4 is making less than ~40k a year, they are essentially not paying income tax. If a single person making above ~40k a year, they are essentially paying for that family of 4. This system is already overwhelming favorable to the poor. The people hurt most by tax are middle class professionals. The poor always have a safety net, a cushy one at that.

What this crazy AOC person is advocating for is no more than socialism/communism. Taking from the productive and redistribute to the lazy, uneducated, and perpetual underclass. It is a trick old as time and the only difference now is the USA is being overran by individuals who don't believe in the American creed and have no sense of self determination, the dignity of work and the freedom of limited government.

America used to have a common culture, one that values hard work, education, and success. It is slowly being succeeded by a culture that is envious of the rich, rewards laziness and incompetence, and sees successful individuals as enemies rather than role models. This AOC person is very naive and carry a very dangerous message of anti status quo. She wishes to replace a system that has created the greatest middle class in the history of the world with something that has been failed in the past and will always fail. It is quite ironic that she wishes to turn America into a country that her parents fled from.
 
Last edited:
Apr 8, 2009
20,196
855
405
I love politicians who promise hefty taxes on the rich as if that will solve anything.

These "progressive" politicians could... you know... pass laws to enable card check. They could work with local communities to bring the workers together. They could work with businesses to promote local employment and education. They could work with local trade schools and universities for better job training.

That would require them to actually care about education as a means for self-determination instead of leveraging it to push their ideology and to push entry-level skill training on behalf of corporations. That would require them to engage with unions and cooperate with them instead of snubbing them at every turn.

Nah, that would take work. Better to just rile up the stupid masses with promises of cashing in on the hard work of those evil rich-folk.
Card check was on the agenda early in Obama's term, but it had 100% opposition from the GOP and the corporate dems as well, so it went nowhere. Pretty sure Ocasio-Cortez supports it. Bernie introduced a bill on it in May.

I mean, if your complaint is that national politicians are insufficiently pro-labor, which is entirely correct, people like Ocasio-Cortez are a really strange target.
 
Oct 5, 2015
4,316
447
290
Honestly at this point I take the continuous failed attacks on her to be a sign of just how scared the Right is of her and the possibility of more people like her rising to positions of power. None of their attempts at smearing her work. She shrugs them off and simultaneously embarrasses them in return for their trouble. She doesn't just take the criticism quietly like other Dems. She is a strong female politician that fights back and people love her for it. And it terrifies them.


And its very entertaining to watch I must say.
Its the fear of those ridiculous ideas taking hold.
 
Sep 2, 2018
147
49
185
27
The well being of the people is drive by private investment. Rich don't accumulate wealth in a safe, money are invested in businesses and funds that drives Small business. More money for social program mean will increase living standard for the poor, but in return it will reduce opportunities and innovation for everyone.

Who do you think will lend new business owner millions of dollars for good innovative ideas? Private wealth pay a critical part in creating new job and industry, it is not something that government can replace. Huge corporation already maintained a monopoly so there are no reason for them to reinvent themselves.

New ideas are always from private investors looking/gambling for the next Google or Amazon. People are willing to lose all their money over and over again in risky project just so they can have a chance for the next big hits.

Increasing certain income tax to 70% will destroy any incentive for small risky investment, because the the risk will remain the same, but the return is much smaller. Do you want to have a bigger foodstamp, or do you want more jobs?

The article did not mention they talking about income tax or investment tax, but I assume they mean both. Since the rich made majority of money from investment, it will be meaningless just increase income tax but not the investment portion.
It's not that straightforward and economic research has been studying the issue since forever.

Wealth is created by investing, true (whether investment is private or public doesn't really matter in a frictionless market). Then, if you think that redistribution only occurs through investment as you described, I think you should be totally fine in mandating companies to reinvest all profits and forbidding shareholders to take dividends.

Also, increasing marginal tax rates up to 70% will not destroy anything, or maybe you have some data backing your statement up.
 
Nov 23, 2010
4,254
179
625
No, you didn't. You are ignoring what I said about wealth taxes and completely missing the fact that the ultra wealthy aren't wealthy because they have high incomes. They have lots of capital gains though. I can't find Soro's reported annual income, since he doesn't have to report it, but most of his earnings come from his capital gains in his hedge funds, and if he isn't selling his shares off he isn't taking income from those gains. Don't forget, Soros is a fucking weasel who has been playing a shell game with his wealth for years as a means of avoiding even the smallest tax bill.

So unless you are redefining the meaning of income, I don't see how nailing people like Soros with a 70% income tax is going to do squat. I will say this again, there are only about 2000 households in the US with reported AGI that is greater than $10,000,000.

I didn't ignore you at all. Just trying to understand why you think this is all so stupid when other people get it.

Again, some of the top American economists concluded that's the optimal tax rate. Why shouldn't it go back up?

You've suggested people don't benefit from lower rates because they hold stocks. Evidently, no one cares what Cortez is talking about because top executives get paid $100k or less. If what you believe is true, then why were income tax rates pushed down over time? I didn't think I needed to explicitly say this but people had the option to receive unearned income at a preferential tax rate during the golden age of capitalism. Even before then there was a gap people could exploit decades ago in the US.

The truth is under this era I can pay myself a much higher salary than you get AND have unearned income taxed at a preferential rate. I can set the compensation virtually any way I please depending on my preferences for liquid assets because I got yet another tax handout from big government.

Also, a high salary isn't just for my benefit. It's also for the people in the tier under me. The whole point of lobbying to push income tax rates down is to exacerbate the gap between the rich and the poor by rigging the system on multiple fronts.
 
Last edited:

kiunchbb

www.dictionary.com
Aug 6, 2009
5,621
26
790
It's not that straightforward and economic research has been studying the issue since forever.

Wealth is created by investing, true (whether investment is private or public doesn't really matter in a frictionless market). Then, if you think that redistribution only occurs through investment as you described, I think you should be totally fine in mandating companies to reinvest all profits and forbidding shareholders to take dividends.

Also, increasing marginal tax rates up to 70% will not destroy anything, or maybe you have some data backing your statement up.
Private vs public investment matter, the difference is whether you want Trump to make investment decision for you, or some CEO. Both have their pros and cons, but personally I prefer most of the money guess into private investment. Public funding should be focus on monitoring and policing private investment instead of being the spender.

Dividend pays a important rule on retirement incomes, a lot of people rely on high dividend blue chip to retire without losing their principle, the same for pension, 401k, annunity, college 529, non profit trust, etc. It is a safer alternative for conservative investor that doesn't want to be actively trading. If dividend no longer exist, people will just sell shares for incomes, which essentially is the same as dividend (dividend reduce stock equity/price, while selling reduce number of stock). I guess brokerage firm will be happy with extra commission from people selling stock every month. Overall removing dividend will just punish the middle class, it wouldn't affect the wealthy.

75% marginal tax will "destroy" investment is not what I mean, what I said was the higher tax will reduce private investment due to private having less supply of money. People like Elon Musk and Gabe Newell wouldn't have as much money to create their own company after cashing out from their previous job.

Moving money from private to public will reduce private investment and increase public spending. At the end of the day, it is about who you think will utilize our money better, the White House, or private investors. My belief is on private investors. I know your are asking for research, but I doubt I can find any since this country never had such policy, and increasing highest tax bracket by 10% will have different market reaction from increasing it to 75%. It is not a simple sliding formula.
 
Aug 30, 2018
505
782
230
Not surprising, AOC has never had a real job that brought in decent Monday until a few days ago. It's someone else's money so of course she'll play fast and loose with it. Once she grows up, she'll realize she was being dumb.

I much prefer super low taxation, like in Singapore or Hong Kong, then let me as the individual pay for the things they need.
 
Sep 16, 2012
6,823
10
440
24
You mean the economists that have been wrongly predicting a recession since Trump was elected?

Yeah, I totally trust them
No, I mean a murderers row of Nobel prize winning economists who have modeled the long term effects of extreme income inequality.

Tax cuts are like an adrenaline shot for an economy and growth is already starting to taper off.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 77995

Unconfirmed Member
What a moron.

Taxation is theft.
I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief.
“Bad news, detective. We got a situation.”
“What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?”
“Worse. Somebody just stole four hundred and forty-seven million dollars’ worth of bitcoins.”
The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. “What kind of monster would do something like that? Bitcoins are the ultimate currency: virtual, anonymous, stateless. They represent true economic freedom, not subject to arbitrary manipulation by any government. Do we have any leads?”
“Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.”
“Easy, chief,” I said. “Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.”
He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.”
“Don’t worry,” I said. “I’m on it.”
I put a quarter in the siren. Ten minutes later, I was on the scene. It was a normal office building, strangled on all sides by public sidewalks. I hopped over them and went inside.
“Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®” I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. “Nobody move unless you want to!” They didn’t.
“Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up.
“Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?”
It didn’t seem like they did.
“Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.”
Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care that a fortune in computer money invented to buy drugs was missing.
I figured I could wait them out. I lit several cigarettes indoors. A pregnant lady coughed, and I told her that secondhand smoke is a myth. Just then, a man in glasses made a break for it.
“Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®” I yelled.
Too late. He was already out the front door. I went after him.
“Stop right there!” I yelled as I ran. He was faster than me because I always try to avoid stepping on public sidewalks. Our country needs a private-sidewalk voucher system, but, thanks to the incestuous interplay between our corrupt federal government and the public-sidewalk lobby, it will never happen.
I was losing him. “Listen, I’ll pay you to stop!” I yelled. “What would you consider an appropriate price point for stopping? I’ll offer you a thirteenth of an ounce of gold and a gently worn ‘Bob Barr ‘08’ extra-large long-sleeved men’s T-shirt!”
He turned. In his hand was a revolver that the Constitution said he had every right to own. He fired at me and missed. I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back. The bullet lodged in a U.S.P.S. mailbox less than a foot from his head. I shot the mailbox again, on purpose.
“All right, all right!” the man yelled, throwing down his weapon. “I give up, cop! I confess: I took the bitcoins.”
“Why’d you do it?” I asked, as I slapped a pair of Oikos™ Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs® on the guy.
“Because I was afraid.”
“Afraid?”
“Afraid of an economic future free from the pernicious meddling of central bankers,” he said. “I’m a central banker.”
I wanted to coldcock the guy. Years ago, a central banker killed my partner. Instead, I shook my head.
“Let this be a message to all your central-banker friends out on the street,” I said. “No matter how many bitcoins you steal, you’ll never take away the dream of an open society based on the principles of personal and economic freedom.”
He nodded, because he knew I was right. Then he swiped his credit card to pay me for arresting him
 
Likes: Miku Miku