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

[Walker]

Uummm... the topic is theft/stealing. Nice try at what-about-ism, though...

Correction:

The topic is Government stealing, via taxes, to which the posting you're humming about, pertained.

Nice theft of my time to explain the obvious.

[Walker]

Incorrigible.

[Walker]

Why are you lecturing me about England? No, the English don't go around crowing that they are 'the greatest' and nor does anyone else but Americans.

For good reasons. England is not, America is.

[accelafine]

Why are you lecturing me about England? No, the English don't go around crowing that they are 'the greatest' and nor does anyone else but Americans.

For good reasons. England is not, America is.

Most people know what the word 'great' actually means. You are only displaying your illiteracy. And yes dear, you are the handsomest man on the planet

[Walker]

I do not need to make an appointment. You know why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aISpXtG96RU

[Alexiev]

The whole point is that it is stealing if one does not explicitly agree to the amounts of money and where they are spent.

No. "Stealing" is a legal term. It is " the action or offence of taking another person's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it". Since taxation is legal, it is not stealing, as anyone can plainly see.

Property is also a legal concept. Without those same laws that have legalized taxation, there would be no property rights.

Sure, all you need is a law that makes taking somebody's stuff legal.

The only reason "somebody's stuff" is "somebody's stuff" is the law makes it so. The same law that defines property permits taxation (it also creates easements and other restrictions on the extent to which the owner of property gets to control other people, which, of course, is all that property rights entail.)

[MikeNovack]

Or at least some subset of us are (imposing taxes on all).

It is NOT stealing when the majority of us decide to impose taxes upon all of us (including the minority opposed) for whatever purpose, including social services.

The whole point is that it is stealing if one does not explicitly agree to the amounts of money and where they are spent.

I do understand the position of the individualist anarchists. But that is a theory of government question, meaning NOT just about taxes and how that money is spent but ALL decisions made by a democratic form of governance. In other words, I insist they openly come out of THAT question (how should we govern ourselves) and not act as if a single issue.

They cannot (properly) argue OK for our system to have taxes for X, Y, and Z but if for social services (that would be stealing). To be proper, would have to be saying "taxes, money used for any purpose, even when imposed by a more or less democratic system, is stealing." THAT would be a legitimate argument, and we could then ask them for their reasons, And what sort of government they think best. This IS the Political Philosophy section of the forum.

Now personally I believe constitutions a good idea, limiting democracy by specifying things we do not decide my majority rule. For example, here in the US, federal tax on income .required the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. Are they arguing for ab amendment "no Feferal tax money used for "social service" programs. Except I believe they would also want this at the state/local level. Even down to places like where I live (local DIRECT democracy -- special town meeting tonight ton authorize using local tax money for X )

SO -- are they arguing against democracy (however imperfect) and what do they suggest instead. I am demanding honesty. I can think of many alternatives to "one person, one vote". For example, since concerned that tax money be used for "social services" how about "one vote IF you pay more than X in taxes" << that was GB up to 19!8, well "one vote IF you paid more than X in taxes AND had a penis" --the latter went away some years later >> Or if they favor oligarchy, how about"one vote for every Y dollars you pay in taxes".

[promethean75]

"Sure, all you need is a law that makes taking somebody's stuff legal"

Yes, without disrupting traditional property laws derived from a constitution you could make it illegal to have employees and force everyone to work for the State (which would be them organized into councils and soviets that control production and all that) or work for themselves (if they have something marketable). Or you could keep employee laws the same but suck all the working class away from the private market by the government offering better wages for the same work in the same industries. You could print a bunch of money and use it to start up government companies rivaling amazon and tesla. When the private guys go under and prices become significantly lower, you can start to gradually stabilize the inflation you caused from the government money printing.

If my calculations are correct, a short-term deflation during a taxed high employment, high wage, and high consumption period will allow the deficit to be paid off by March 24 2054 at 1:13 p.m. eastern time. But only if the Feds start printing by July 11th of next year. If they miss that critical deadline, the additional deficit spending will have caused a Hansviche-Lowitzer event in the market. And a Hansviche-Lowitzer event is bad. Very bad. You don't recover from one.

Other than that, you gotta get the big wigs to literally tweak the property laws and make using factories and businesses to employ wage earners illegal... or tax the shit out of the privilege and discourage people from trying to start their own businesses... initiationing the turn to government for employment.

Finally, the physical government - administrative, legislative, judicial, public works, etc. - gets dissolved under the control of those that work in those fields. The healthcare system becomes streamlined under the control of networking medical workers. No board of directors or owners or private donors to the hospitals. The courts come under the administration of students, teachers, and practicing professionals in law. And changes in law and practice can happen almost immediately without having to pass the decision through a series of unnecessary higher courts or worry about violating a constitution.

The military forces of the world would be in an inactive standby mode and not disbanded. We need to remain weaponized in case of an alien invasion or Taylor Swift generating a following exceeding 3 billion misunderstood teenage girls and exhausted housewives.

[Immanuel Can]

What does any of that have to do with the price of haddock?

The price of haddock is the same, whether in US dollars or British pounds.

The English, whom I know very well indeed, are less ostentatious than the Americans, but every bit as prone to nationalism, not less xenophobic, and in their "stiff upper lip" way, every bit as convinced of the superiority of English culture. Hence, their fondness for shows of state, for the Union Jack or the Cross of St. George, and their nostalgia about the days of the British Empire.

They just don't say it the way the Americans do. However, even their sense of superiority to the Americans is born of the same grudgy nationalism that England has always had.

Anybody who knows the English knows that, at least. And I like the English...and participate in their history myself.

However, this I will say for the Americans: they're much more open-hearted, ingenuous, unselfish and enthusiastic about other people's success than the Brits are. The English resent anybody who tries to improve his station in life, or who fails to hold his place. In America, if you move up in life, the Americans' attitude is, "Yay for you, pal: go for it." The English attitude is, "He's a fellow who doesn't know his place."

America may be brash, but England is still heirarchical and snobby. America's not. So that's a point for the Americans.

Why are you lecturing me about England? No, the English don't go around crowing that they are 'the greatest' and nor does anyone else but Americans.

I'm not lecturing you. I'm just pointing out the truth. All nations are nationalistic: they just express it differently. For the English, it takes the form of imperious snobbery. They always believe themselves "more civilized" and "better mannered" than the teeming hordes elsewhere. For the Americans, ingenuous enthusiasm and promotion. So what?

[Immanuel Can]

That's why we tax the rich who take all the money, moron!

You'd better learn to count, Gary. If Socialism were instituted $10,000 is all you'd have!

There's no more to tax. It's all gone. Nobody is rich from then on. Or ever again.

There's no point in talking to you anymore.

Of course not. Because with a fixed income of only $10,000, which is all global Socialism will allow you, you cannot have decent health care, you cannot get an education, you cannot build roads, you cannot heat your house or pay your rent, you cannot even feed yourself beyond bare subsistence. And the government on which you've fixed your hopes goes bankrupt, because it has nothing more to tax. It can't tax you, because it gives you your income, and you'll die if you have much less; and it's already "redistributed" all the income potential in the entire world.

So Socialism is just dead stupid. The sooner you do the math, the better off you'll be. If you don't do the math, you'll keep on plugging for a "solution" that can't even happen, and would be horrendously bad for everybody if we could make it happen.

Wakey wakey.

[phyllo]

fixed income of only $10,000

Complete BS

[Immanuel Can]

fixed income of only $10,000

Complete BS

That's the world's income, including all the most wealthy, divided by the number of people that there are. So that's what it would be, if you're an international Socialist. Of course, if you were a National Socialist (i.e. a Nazi), the numbers -- and the problems -- would be somewhat different. But I'm assuming that a mere National Socialism is not your aim, nor Gary's.

[phyllo]

That's the world's income, including all the most wealthy, divided by the number of people that there are.

A nonsensical number.

What does it mean?

If we help people out of poverty then we will become poor?

[Immanuel Can]

That's the world's income, including all the most wealthy, divided by the number of people that there are.

What does it mean?

If we help people out of poverty then we will become poor?

No. It means if we use Socialism's strategy, we'll make EVERYBODY poor. That the only way to increase wealth for everybody is to add value, to create new wealth through incentivizing human creativity and technology, and through voluntary transactions based on that.

In other words, through what Socialists know nothing about.

[accelafine]

The price of haddock is the same, whether in US dollars or British pounds.

The English, whom I know very well indeed, are less ostentatious than the Americans, but every bit as prone to nationalism, not less xenophobic, and in their "stiff upper lip" way, every bit as convinced of the superiority of English culture. Hence, their fondness for shows of state, for the Union Jack or the Cross of St. George, and their nostalgia about the days of the British Empire.

They just don't say it the way the Americans do. However, even their sense of superiority to the Americans is born of the same grudgy nationalism that England has always had.

Anybody who knows the English knows that, at least. And I like the English...and participate in their history myself.

However, this I will say for the Americans: they're much more open-hearted, ingenuous, unselfish and enthusiastic about other people's success than the Brits are. The English resent anybody who tries to improve his station in life, or who fails to hold his place. In America, if you move up in life, the Americans' attitude is, "Yay for you, pal: go for it." The English attitude is, "He's a fellow who doesn't know his place."

America may be brash, but England is still heirarchical and snobby. America's not. So that's a point for the Americans.

Why are you lecturing me about England? No, the English don't go around crowing that they are 'the greatest' and nor does anyone else but Americans.

I'm not lecturing you. I'm just pointing out the truth. All nations are nationalistic: they just express it differently. For the English, it takes the form of imperious snobbery. They always believe themselves "more civilized" and "better mannered" than the teeming hordes elsewhere. For the Americans, ingenuous enthusiasm and promotion. So what?

Pathetic deflection and 'whataboutism'. The 'British Empire' is a dead donkey. Even when it was alive I doubt if your average English person crowed about being 'the greatest'. They have their own awful class system. The snobs and warmongers were the upper crust. As I pointed out, only Americans crow endlessly and openly about being the 'greatest'. 'So what' that they truly believe every other country (i.e. people) is inferior to them? I will leave you to work that out for yourself.