Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?

[Age]

Who is this mythical family? How were they "suddenly struck"? Does the father have an alcohol and gambling problem? Is the mother an insane shopaholic? Did they plan badly, and overextend their credit? Or were they squatters? Or was there a house fire...

Different situations argue for different solutions. But maybe you can explain to me how handing more power to the government would convince them to help these people. Let's hear your plan.

So is it your belief...

No, no...you answer first. Explain how the government is going to help these people.

By building more roads and defending "themselves" more, of course.

The government is certainly not going to help through community services, support, and assistance. For the very fact that money spent on more roads and on defending "themselves" is far, far, far more important.

[Age]

IC and his fellow 'trickle-downers' are just eugenicists but they don't have the guts to come out and say it. That's why nothing they say makes any sense (always a massive red flag).They genuinely believe that only the rich deserve to live. What better way to 'weed out humanity's losers' than let them starve to death, and withold their medical care?

Yeah. I don't know what IC's position is on this. It will be interesting to find out, I'm sure. Please tell me he's not talking about denying people help based on whether it can be determined it's their "fault" for being homeless.

"Immanuel can's" position 'on this', is 'the same' as its position, in Life. it actually believes that there are 'people' who are 'less than', and, 'more than' 'it'.

Now, 'those' on the 'less than' "side" of "immanuel can" do not deserve any help nor support, at all, because 'they' are responsibility for their own 'lesser than' position. While those on the 'upper' "side" of "Immanuel can" do deserve all the help, support, and taxed money' help and support, from 'the others', because 'they' were responsible for 'where' 'they are', 'today'. you know, 'those ones' like "christian" kings", "queens", and "billionares".

To "immanuel can" 'these ones' deserve all the help and support that 'they' can get, from 'others', because, you know, 'they' have worked, 'so hard', for 'where they are', 'now'.

[Age]

No, no...you answer first. Explain how the government is going to help these people.

If a friend of mine found himself homeless I would recommend hooking up with section 8 government housing programs, and getting on food stamps.

Who pays?

Who pays for the absolutely unnecessary guns, bombs, missiles, nuclear weapons, and for the armies of human beings, and for the propaganda, needed to keep 'this business', 'in business'?

Imagine being that 'blind' and 'stupid' that while attempting to fight and argue for 'your position' that weapons manufacturing, wars, and the killing of human beings is 'necessary', while at the same time asking, 'Who pays?' to provide help, support, aid, healthcare, food, and shelter for 'those' who actually 'need it'.

The exact same people pay for both, what helps in bringing societies and the world to peace, and to harmony, as well as for, what causes and creates societies to and the world to war, and to killings.

That is, you human beings who 'go to work', so that 'some' can become 'unimaginably monetary rich', while 'the money' that 'you give' to 'those', who you elect in, get to decide how to 'spend/waste' 'that money', which can obviously go towards a much better, or much worse, 'world', for every one.

The 'same people' 'pay the money', who gets 'to spend that money', and 'how', again, depends upon who you elect in to so-call "lead you".

[LuckyR]

Ah yes, the ol' "theft" ruse. You know what Real theft would be? Using government services but not paying for them (through tax paying). So don't use any power, roads, fire dept, police dept, Internet, GPS, any medical technology discovered through NIH grant money, etc. You go girl!

[Age]

Where does the money come from?

All "free" money comes from people who work. Keep that in mind.

I wrote exactly where from, taxes.

That's other people's money.

So what?

That exact same money just as easily and simply get spent on making weapons as it can on helping others. 'That money' can just as easily and simply get spent/wasted on corruption, as it can on health and education.

Also, noted is that you, obviously, did not previously read what was actually, clearly, said, and written, here.

That's the funny thing about Socialists...they think there's magic money that nobody has earned, and nobody needs to make, and it just appears in greater quantities whenever the government calls for it.

Notice how often 'this one' attempts to trick, fool, and deceive the readers, here.

LOL 'this one actually 'tries to' claim that when it is challenged and questioned over how it makes much more logical and common sense to spend/waste money on helping and supporting others through education, health, and aid, other than on through producing and creating more weapons and wars, then 'you' are so-called "socialist". As, laughably, 'this' is some kind of logical argument.

But it's the worker who pays.

Obviously. Are 'you' just working 'this' out, now, "immanuel can".

It is, also, 'the worker' who pays for the taxes that get spent/wasted on corruption, defence, warring, weapon designing and manufacturing, helping the already rich and privileged, and on every other governmental waste. So, if you have 'a point', here, then what is 'it', exactly, "immanuel can"?

Can you, really, still not see that some people think that it would create a much better world, for every one, if 'worker's money' was spent on helping and supporting human beings, families, and children, instead of on weapons, wars, and the killing of human beings, families, and children?

Sure, you can see, here, right?

It's the one who's adding value who you end up robbing in order to pay for those who won't or can't add value...

Again, 'this one' actually believes, absolutely, that 'some people' are 'less than', and thus can not contribute nor 'add value', to 'the world'.

Are you, still, not yet aware of just how much of 'your superiority complex' comes 'shining through', here?

and you don't even give those who have earned the means the chance to do the right thing freely, because you don't believe they will. And you think the State will be more moral than the people in it.

Where are you getting these Truly weird, to me, presumptions from, exactly?

Of course, in history, that's always proved to be a false premise. It's failed 100% of the time.

Okay, so instead of going on and on about what does 'not work', you provide what 'will actually work', for sure?

I wrote that this was a redistribution.

Well, when a robber breaks into your house and holds you at gunpoint, he's also "redistributing" your property.

So, why do you want to live in 'a world' where you are continually 'trying to' justify the making and creation of more weapons?

Obviously if there were 'no guns', then you could not be held 'at gunpoint'.

But, it is far more important that weapons manufacturing keeps increasing so that 'we' can keep 'protecting' "ourselves". Which, again, is actually wanting to 'protect' "ourselves", from "our" very own 'selves'.

But somehow, Socialists never have a conscience about it, so long as it's the State doing the theft.

And, once again, 'the one' with the 'deflective abilities' of 'the devil', itself, 'strikes again'.

But it's the same act, and has the same effect. So I say, call it what it is: theft.

Okay.

To "immanuel can", when 'taxes' are used to help, support, and benefit human beings, humankind, then 'this' is so-called 'theft'. But, when 'taxes' are used in building more roads and building more weapons, where 'corruption' runs very, very deep, then 'this' is not called 'theft', at all.

[Age]

One more thought: Socialists aren't automatically nationalists (Nazis are National Socialists, but Communists aspire to global Communism).

Again, any thing related to 'society' and 'community' where 'the world' lives together, peacefully as One, here, on earth, is Wrong and bad in "immanuel can's" 'eyes'.

And, this is because it is only after 'you' die, will you get 'the chance' to go to heaven.

Yes, this really was how absolutely twisted and distorted some human beings really were, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

In fact, most advocates of Socialism today are NOT nationalistic about it. And they're not regionalists either -- they don't, for example, say that Socialism's only good for Europe, but that the US and UK can skip it. In aspiration, they're globalists. They think Socialism is just good and fair for everybody.

LOL So, 'the people' who say that 'equality' for every one, as One, 'world wide', are the insane and bad ones. Well according to "immanuel can" anyway. Obviously its belief that all 'workers' should 'keep working' and 'keep paying taxes' so that more and more weapons and wars can keep being created, because 'this' is the right and best thing to 'keep doing', in Life.

But what would actualizing global Socialism do to the average income? Assuming we're talking about "free" money on a global scale, each person gets just less than $10,000 US/year -- below poverty, and nearly below subsistence.

Why did you pluck a 'dollar figure', 'out of air', as some might say, which is below poverty and nearly below subsistence level, and then say and write, 'below poverty, and nearly below subsistence', exactly?

That's not including taxation, government inefficiency, bureaucratic bloat, or fiscal incompetency of any kind, all of which would surely lower that figure considerably if they persisted. This is what the number would be if all that disappeared, and Socialist utopia broke out.

So, 'this one', here, actually believes, absolutely, that 'every one living together in peace, and in harmony, as One', is what is Wrong, and bad, in Life.

Right now, do you live on more than that? Congratulations: you're one of the global rich elite. But if you're not a nationalist, and thing ALL people have a claim against anyone with more income, then the Developing World has a huge claim against you. So you'd be accusing yourself of being a global oppressor, or bourgeois tyrant, or a selfish, rich hoarder...if you get more than $10,000 per year.

See, how often 'this one' introduces, what are called, 'red herrings', and then fights and argues against its own introduced claims.

No one else says nor claims 'those things'. But, 'this one' thinks or believes it is a good idea to introduce totally random and previously unspoken things, as doing so then it, at least, as some thing that it thinks it could 'argue against'.

Now, there's a puzzle for our Socialism advocates to work out.

The only 'puzzle', here, is in 'that head', "Immanuel can".

And, what is becoming increasingly more 'puzzling', to some of 'us', here, is why you would even want to 'try to' defend the use of 'tax payer's money' on things that cause and create corruption, conflict, wars, and the killing of human beings, and why you would want to 'try to' argue against those who are advocating for more of 'their own tax payer's money' be spent on helping human beings and humanity, itself, instead.

But, 'each to their own', as some say.

[mickthinks]

Sozialists aren't automatically socialists.

I’ve corrected that for you, Manny. You’re welcome!

[Walker]

Oh and while we're at it, perhaps we should define "Theft".

Thoughts?

Gary, focus. Stay true to the thread title. Try defining "Theft" in the context of government taxation, as the thread title implies.

For that matter, interpret the US Constitution in the light of the Declaration of Independence, rather than as some abstract assemblage of concepts designed for the purpose of destroying the country.

*

Taxation under false pretenses is stealing, by the government.

Examples of false pretenses, although futilely provided for those who know what they know and damn the torpedoes:

- The Affordable Care Act is not affordable.
- Inflation Reduction Act does not reduce inflation.
- $ billions taxed to install EV charging stations, did not produce EV stations.
- As Obama lightly quipped … guess those shovel-ready jobs weren’t so shovel-ready after all. Those in the room chuckled along with the boss over such wit and skill at lying to get the money, but no one asked what corrupt hole swallowed (stole) the appropriated $billions and $billions.

- Google Solyndra. It wasn't a one-off. Alternative energy pipe dreams were pretty expensive pipe dreams, and many were fronts for trough-feeding.

- Question to AI: How much money can the Pentagon not account for*?

- AI answer: The Pentagon cannot account for trillions of dollars in assets, not a single, specific amount of missing cash. The lack of accountability stems from its failure to pass an independent financial audit for seven consecutive years (since audits became mandatory in 2018), which means auditors cannot verify its financial statements.

Comment: Trillions of dollars? It boggles the mind. Does your mind feel boggled? What corrupt hole swallowed (stole) some of that trough? Who knows? There is no accounting for it ... by government design.

- It's not so hard to imagine, it isn't hard to do. After all, baseline budgeting is built into legislative appropriations so the individual legislators don't have to answer for spending increases, in a government system that literally defines "budget cuts," as a slight reduction in the spending increase.

*in this case, “for” is a prepositional ending for the obsessed.

[Walker]

The old government threat ... Oh, so you're not going to increase the money we take, eh?

Well then, all essential services are hereby canceled.

- Your house will burn to the ground because of no fire department.
- You will be a victim because of no police.
- Your children won't pass basis proficiency tests because government teachers can't educate them.
- You won't be able to rebuild your burned out home because no one in the government is issuing the necessary permits.

Oh ... wait a minute ... that's when the government gets what it wants.


Uh huh.

[Walker]

(since audits became mandatory in 2018)

AI: Who was the US president in 2018?



Did our stubborn Chomskyite factor this into the antidote for Government Stealing from others?

Aren't the Chomskyite's a cult community, with cultish values?

[Walker]

It’s worth noting that:

- The Pacific Palisades community in California had some well-off folks with homes there, next to the ocean, and the hillsides have wonderful sunsets.
- Some of the homes were generational and people worked to pay the taxes.
- Some folks were better off, those are usually the hill people these days.
- Not everything burned.

Some folks with the means, afforded by Capitalism, hired professionals with water trucks and the knowledge of how to use them. They didn’t spread all that Water Capital around town. They used it where they were privately paid to use it, and they saved the structures from the fire.

However, the neighborhood went to hell, because of the government’s lack of water infrastructure that made available water, unavailable, because of a lack of infrastructure funds in one of the most heavily taxed states in the country.

Obviously, it’s not a matter of funds, but of government mismanagement.
Theft by unaccountable incompetence.

However, mismanagement and incompetence are defined in terms of what is good for the people who own the land.

The government just might have another definition of what is good. The government just might be expertly managed, with different objectives than the people. The governor and mayor are crafty opportunists, as are many career politicians in constitutionally-intended, short-term positions.

The government just might have an agenda other than the People-Agenda of the people who traded their blood sweat & tears, and life force to own land, who want to do what they must for the sake of themselves and the community.

Such expert, other-than-the-people management of the people, for the politicized government objectives and not the objective of the people, would in fact be Stealing by government.

[Immanuel Can]

Such expert, other-than-the-people management of the people, for the politicized government objectives and not the objective of the people, would in fact be Stealing by government.

That's very true.

But WHEN does the government manage anything except in its own interest? Only when close accountability, such as a short election cycle with a choice of candidates and strict limitations on each office's authority are maintained. The minute the government has latitude, it takes power to itself to control more, tax more, disposses more, legislate more and restrict access to more. It acts to increase it's own power and prosperity, not the welfare of ordinary people.

This is a big problem with Socialist theory. In theory, a Socialist government is said to operate with such paternalism and unselfish interests that it serves the ordinary people. In fact, in Communism, it's supposed eventually to wither away voluntarily, so that no government ends up being needed at all. All of this supposes a human nature that is special, and only found in Socialist government officials -- namely, complete devotion to "the good" as conceived in Socialist theory, and complete self-abnegation in favour of "the people."

But of course, this theory supposes people to be as they never are. People are not perfect, unselfish, uncorruptable, unambitious, devoted to the public good and above inducement to self-interest. There are no such human beings. And, in fact, people who even approach this sort of saintliness are vanishingly rare. Government is inevitably composed of fallen, corruptible, selfish human beings, in whom virtue is only occasional and is only produced by strenuous devotion to duty.

There used to be an old joke. It went

"What's the difference between Socialism and Capitalism?"
Answer: "Well, under Capitalism, man exploits man;
And under Socialism, it's the other way around."

That's truth. But the problem for Socialism is that it allows for only one political party -- the Socialist Party. So not only are corruptible humans in charge, but they're unchecked, unrestrained, and unlimited in tyranny, since the ordinary people have no checks-and-balances, constitutional limitations, term limits, or democratic votes that can unseat the Socialist elite.

And that has never ended up well. Not even once.

[Walker]

But WHEN does the government manage anything except in its own interest?

In the movies.

I think that in the US, people have the romanticized vision of Socialism, sort of like that presented in The Grapes of Wrath, updated for the modern needs of people, especially packed into urban close quarters.

The Joad family finally found peace and safety in the arms of the Government Camp which was cheap, clean, self-policing, and family oriented. It was run by a saintly-elder dressed in white. The clean, sanitary, camp where the Joads lived in tents and worked for their keep, was temporary, and the movie ended there. That's when California was the paradise of opportunity and beauty, and Chavez aimed to keep it that way but not for Mexicans.

[Immanuel Can]

But WHEN does the government manage anything except in its own interest?

In the movies.

In a Steinbeck fantasy, then...not where any real people live.

[Walker]

Well, I think they did have the camps in California, although my ancestors didn't use them although they experienced the bigotry against those migrating in from the dust bowl, looking for work. The point I was making, is that the movie pictured the government as a savior with the sword and shield of socialism, like Mamdani of NYC.