New York City

[accelafine]

Don't you just love bean counters?

[Age]

True. Americans would rather loot than have free public transport, a roof over their head, and decent health care that's accessible to everyone

Who's going to pay for it? Will you?

Magic money is a myth. "Government money" means, "robbing the public."

LOL Just the top dozen or so billionaires could pay for it. That is, if they used their money together wisely, instead of greedily.

And, if so-called 'magic money' is a myth, and absolutely no one else mentioned, nor talked about, 'magic money', then why did you introduce this 'red herring', as some would say?

Also, how could so-called 'government money' mean 'robbing the public' when 'that money' is being used for 'the public'? I would suggest that when 'government money', which is essentially 'public money', is being used for some only 'personal use', then that is, literally, 'robbing the public'. Using 'public/government money' for 'the public' is, obviously, not 'robbing the public' at all.

[Age]

Shouldn't everyone have health care?

Paid for by whom?

The ones with, obviously, excess money.

[accelafine]

Shouldn't everyone have health care?

Paid for by whom?

The people who pay taxes (i.e. everyone). How would you prefer tax revenue to be distributed?

[Age]

Who's going to pay for it? Will you?

Magic money is a myth. "Government money" means, "robbing the public."

Funny that the countries which have equal access to good health care don't pay any higher taxes than those that don't.

Tax-to-GDP in the US is 25%. The same ratio in the OECD is 34%. It's between 42 and 46% in France, Belgium, Italy, Finland, Austria, and Denmark, and 35% in the UK and Canada.

You'll have to explain how that means these countries "don't pay higher taxes."

And while you're at it, we should note that access is severely restricted in many of the same countries...a person who needs a hip surgery in Canada, for example, right next door to the US, can wait 6 months to a year-and-a-half to get it, regardless of the seriousness and potential damage involved, and cannot pay more to move up the wait list.

LOL What a joke.

In the US, it's going to be expensive; but if you need it, you can get it. That's something worth considering, too...especially if it's your hip. Doctor availability and skilling is much higher in the US. And as for the level of the medical technology available, there's simply no comparison.

So, absolutely every doctor and absolutely all of the medical technology is better in the so-called "united states of america" compared to absolutely everywhere else in the world. Well according to 'this one', here, anyway.

So there are trade-offs, of which price is one. But only one.

If you say and believe so.

[Immanuel Can]

Shouldn't everyone have health care?

Paid for by whom?

The people who pay taxes (i.e. everyone). How would you prefer tax revenue to be distributed?

Government doesn't do anything well. They NEVER spend money efficiently, and it's the money they take from ordinary folks. Consequently, the less of it they have, the better for everybody. And everybody struggles when the government takes huge chunks of their money and burns up. Always remember that government is not spending their own money, but other people's.

If somebody gave you custody of other people's money, and said, "Spend it to get yourself re-elected, and we'll pay you lavishly and give you privileges most people only dream of," most people would do just that, whatever it took. So they have no incentive to be efficient with it, use it responsibly, or give any of it back to you. When it's gone, it's gone. It isn't really theirs, so what do they care if they burn it up?

So I'd suggest we confine government interference to the absolute minimum -- essential services like roads, sewers, civil defense and international relations. The private sector, local entrepreneurship or voluntary associations are the best way to take care of most other needs.

[accelafine]

Paid for by whom?

The people who pay taxes (i.e. everyone). How would you prefer tax revenue to be distributed?

Government doesn't do anything well. They NEVER spend money efficiently, and it's the money they take from ordinary folks. Consequently, the less of it they have, the better for everybody. And everybody struggles when the government takes huge chunks of their money and burns up. Always remember that government is not spending their own money, but other people's.

If somebody gave you custody of other people's money, and said, "Spend it to get yourself re-elected, and we'll pay you lavishly and give you privileges most people only dream of," most people would do just that, whatever it took. So they have no incentive to be efficient with it, use it responsibly, or give any of it back to you. When it's gone, it's gone. It isn't really theirs, so what do they care if they burn it up?

So I'd suggest we confine government interference to the absolute minimum -- essential services like roads, sewers, civil defense and international relations. The private sector, local entrepreneurship or voluntary associations are the best way to take care of most other needs.

Who are you to say what is 'important' or not? Some people don't use roads. Why should they have to pay for them? And who gives a shit about 'international relations'? More like 'international parasitism and grifting'. I notice you left out 'unimportant' things like education and health. What about the military? People like you always make that a major priority. You don't think anything should be spent on it? Good for you. Wouldn't you just love it if people had to go begging to the church for medical care or food and shelter. Just like the 'good old days' of Victorian times. Oh the power...

[Immanuel Can]

The people who pay taxes (i.e. everyone). How would you prefer tax revenue to be distributed?

Government doesn't do anything well. They NEVER spend money efficiently, and it's the money they take from ordinary folks. Consequently, the less of it they have, the better for everybody. And everybody struggles when the government takes huge chunks of their money and burns up. Always remember that government is not spending their own money, but other people's.

If somebody gave you custody of other people's money, and said, "Spend it to get yourself re-elected, and we'll pay you lavishly and give you privileges most people only dream of," most people would do just that, whatever it took. So they have no incentive to be efficient with it, use it responsibly, or give any of it back to you. When it's gone, it's gone. It isn't really theirs, so what do they care if they burn it up?

So I'd suggest we confine government interference to the absolute minimum -- essential services like roads, sewers, civil defense and international relations. The private sector, local entrepreneurship or voluntary associations are the best way to take care of most other needs.

Who are you to say what is 'important' or not?

One of the people whose money government is wasting. Since I'm paying the bills, and since I live in a democratic polity, I feel quite justified in asking where my money is going. Don't you?

I notice you left out 'unimportant' things like education and health.

Government isn't competent in either. What goes into your brain, and what goes into your body, are your affairs. When government manages them, they just become a bottomless pit of graft.

What about the military? People like you always make that a major priority.

Civil defense is sufficient, except in the cases of extreme external aggression, as in WW 2. Then, you legitimately find you do need a government to manage your military. But a police force is a reasonable expenditure; criminality is better handled by a justice system.

[accelafine]

Government doesn't do anything well. They NEVER spend money efficiently, and it's the money they take from ordinary folks. Consequently, the less of it they have, the better for everybody. And everybody struggles when the government takes huge chunks of their money and burns up. Always remember that government is not spending their own money, but other people's.

If somebody gave you custody of other people's money, and said, "Spend it to get yourself re-elected, and we'll pay you lavishly and give you privileges most people only dream of," most people would do just that, whatever it took. So they have no incentive to be efficient with it, use it responsibly, or give any of it back to you. When it's gone, it's gone. It isn't really theirs, so what do they care if they burn it up?

So I'd suggest we confine government interference to the absolute minimum -- essential services like roads, sewers, civil defense and international relations. The private sector, local entrepreneurship or voluntary associations are the best way to take care of most other needs.

Who are you to say what is 'important' or not?

One of the people whose money government is wasting. Since I'm paying the bills, and since I live in a democratic polity, I feel quite justified in asking where my money is going. Don't you?

I don't actually think of it as MY money. It's money that goes towards making life better for everyone. It's not pleasant to see homeless, starving people on the streets. Everything is connected. Not everyone has the same priorities as you either. Imagine the logistics of asking every individual exactly what they want THEIR tax money to be spent. Or would you prefer a referendum? Of course you wouldn't, because it's all about YOU. You don't care about the taxes. You just can't stand the thought of them making life a bit easier for the people you hate. Such a wonderful christian attitude

[Age]

Paid for by whom?

The people who pay taxes (i.e. everyone). How would you prefer tax revenue to be distributed?

Government doesn't do anything well.

So, there is not a single thing in the whole of human history that any government in all of that time that has done well. Well, according to "immanuel can" anyway.

They NEVER spend money efficiently, and it's the money they take from ordinary folks.

But yet you, still, do not want them to spend that 'public money' on 'the public'. Which, in and if itself, is 'robbing the public'.

Consequently, the less of it they have, the better for everybody. And everybody struggles when the government takes huge chunks of their money and burns up. Always remember that government is not spending their own money, but other people's.

LOL you say and write this but then oppose public money being spend on the public like for example healthcare for every one.

If somebody gave you custody of other people's money, and said, "Spend it to get yourself re-elected, and we'll pay you lavishly and give you privileges most people only dream of," most people would do just that, whatever it took. So they have no incentive to be efficient with it, use it responsibly, or give any of it back to you. When it's gone, it's gone. It isn't really theirs, so what do they care if they burn it up?

Yet you, still, 'try to' justify governments do not spend money on the public in regards to cheaper transportation and universal healthcare.

So I'd suggest we confine government interference to the absolute minimum -- essential services like roads, sewers, civil defense and international relations. The private sector, local entrepreneurship or voluntary associations are the best way to take care of most other needs.

LOL So they can then 'take' the money, and then keep all of that money for "themselves".

[Immanuel Can]

Who are you to say what is 'important' or not?

One of the people whose money government is wasting. Since I'm paying the bills, and since I live in a democratic polity, I feel quite justified in asking where my money is going. Don't you?

I don't actually think of it as MY money.

And yet, it is. They didn't earn it...you did.

It's money that goes towards making life better for everyone. It's not pleasant to see homeless, starving people on the streets.

Are you finding that government is actually helping with that? Or are you finding that they're actually a very inefficient bureaucracy that sucks up most of the money they get and only squirts out a pittance to "everyone"? If "everyone" is having their lives "made better," as you suggest, by government action, how come there's so many sad, miserable, poor people...and more of them in big-government places?

Maybe it's time to ask: how much more help could there be if the spending of that same money were efficient? How does government manage to spend so lavishly, and still there are people on the streets?

You and I seem to agree that things like mental-health services are badly needed. If government's doing such a great job, how come that's happening?

Not everyone has the same priorities as you either.

That's the beauty of not robbing them of their hard-earned money. They can set their own priorities, and direct their funds accordingly. It's very democratic.

Imagine the logistics of asking every individual exactly what they want THEIR tax money to be spent.

Very simple. Don't take it from them in the first place, except for in regard to those essential services I mentioned. The less of people's money that the government gets to touch, the more of it will go to the things we value.

You don't care about the taxes.

No, I really don't. I care about the people they're robbing, and the many, many people who could be helped, but are not, because government is so corrupt and inefficient in delivering services.

[accelafine]

One of the people whose money government is wasting. Since I'm paying the bills, and since I live in a democratic polity, I feel quite justified in asking where my money is going. Don't you?

I don't actually think of it as MY money.

And yet, it is. They didn't earn it...you did.

It's money that goes towards making life better for everyone. It's not pleasant to see homeless, starving people on the streets.

Are you finding that government is actually helping with that? Or are you finding that they're actually a very inefficient bureaucracy that sucks up most of the money they get and only squirts out a pittance to "everyone"? If "everyone" is having their lives "made better," as you suggest, by government action, how come there's so many sad, miserable, poor people...and more of them in big-government places?

Maybe it's time to ask: how much more help could there be if the spending of that same money were efficient? How does government manage to spend so lavishly, and still there are people on the streets?

You and I seem to agree that things like mental-health services are badly needed. If government's doing such a great job, how come that's happening?

Not everyone has the same priorities as you either.

That's the beauty of not robbing them of their hard-earned money. They can set their own priorities, and direct their funds accordingly. It's very democratic.

Imagine the logistics of asking every individual exactly what they want THEIR tax money to be spent.

Very simple. Don't take it from them in the first place, except for in regard to those essential services I mentioned. The less of people's money that the government gets to touch, the more of it will go to the things we value.

You don't care about the taxes.

No, I really don't. I care about the people they're robbing, and the many, many people who could be helped, but are not, because government is so corrupt and inefficient in delivering services.

Ugh. What a selfish ****. Nothing will change that.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't actually think of it as MY money.

And yet, it is. They didn't earn it...you did.

It's money that goes towards making life better for everyone. It's not pleasant to see homeless, starving people on the streets.

Are you finding that government is actually helping with that? Or are you finding that they're actually a very inefficient bureaucracy that sucks up most of the money they get and only squirts out a pittance to "everyone"? If "everyone" is having their lives "made better," as you suggest, by government action, how come there's so many sad, miserable, poor people...and more of them in big-government places?

Maybe it's time to ask: how much more help could there be if the spending of that same money were efficient? How does government manage to spend so lavishly, and still there are people on the streets?

You and I seem to agree that things like mental-health services are badly needed. If government's doing such a great job, how come that's happening?

Not everyone has the same priorities as you either.

That's the beauty of not robbing them of their hard-earned money. They can set their own priorities, and direct their funds accordingly. It's very democratic.

Imagine the logistics of asking every individual exactly what they want THEIR tax money to be spent.

Very simple. Don't take it from them in the first place, except for in regard to those essential services I mentioned. The less of people's money that the government gets to touch, the more of it will go to the things we value.

You don't care about the taxes.

No, I really don't. I care about the people they're robbing, and the many, many people who could be helped, but are not, because government is so corrupt and inefficient in delivering services.

Ugh. What a selfish ****. Nothing will change that.

Not at all. I'm an advocate for the poor, who are being robbed by the rich and privileged. And I'm in favour of charity and community efforts of all kinds. I just realize that government is an inept vehicle. And I marvel that you're content to let your money be drained off by government, and thus to do no worldly good for anybody.

If you think it helps people when you let them be robbed, or if you think government is a marvel of good use of funds, I don't know what to say to you.

[Immanuel Can]

Don't you just love bean counters?

Those who don't count are soon parted from their beans.

[accelafine]

And yet, it is. They didn't earn it...you did.

Are you finding that government is actually helping with that? Or are you finding that they're actually a very inefficient bureaucracy that sucks up most of the money they get and only squirts out a pittance to "everyone"? If "everyone" is having their lives "made better," as you suggest, by government action, how come there's so many sad, miserable, poor people...and more of them in big-government places?

Maybe it's time to ask: how much more help could there be if the spending of that same money were efficient? How does government manage to spend so lavishly, and still there are people on the streets?

You and I seem to agree that things like mental-health services are badly needed. If government's doing such a great job, how come that's happening?

That's the beauty of not robbing them of their hard-earned money. They can set their own priorities, and direct their funds accordingly. It's very democratic.

Very simple. Don't take it from them in the first place, except for in regard to those essential services I mentioned. The less of people's money that the government gets to touch, the more of it will go to the things we value.

No, I really don't. I care about the people they're robbing, and the many, many people who could be helped, but are not, because government is so corrupt and inefficient in delivering services.

Ugh. What a selfish ****. Nothing will change that.

Not at all. I'm an advocate for the poor, who are being robbed by the rich and privileged. And I'm in favour of charity and community efforts of all kinds. I just realize that government is an inept vehicle. And I marvel that you're content to let your money be drained off by government, and thus to do no worldly good for anybody.

If you think it helps people when you let them be robbed, or if you think government is a marvel of good use of funds, I don't know what to say to you.

Where's all this 'stealing'? Do you have proof? Just like Elon Musk did? Idiot.