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

[phyllo]

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.

Jesus said no such thing.

He said nothing about creating new wealth, adding value, increasing wealth, incentivizing technology or voluntary transactions.

If anything he was against prioritizing money over God.

[Immanuel Can]

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'.

Straight truth. I know Americans, and I know the English.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Jesus said no such thing.

Right. It was a thing called "economics" that said it.

[phyllo]

Jesus says that 'economics' is bullshit.

[Immanuel Can]

Jesus says that 'economics' is bullshit.

I don't recall Him saying any such thing. But maybe you can inform me.

[phyllo]

Jesus says that 'economics' is bullshit.

I don't recall Him saying any such thing. But maybe you can inform me.

At no point did Jesus prioritize economics over love of God or love of neighbor or love of self.

[Age]

Incorrigible.

Yes, the fact that you just keep believing some things to be true and then keep claiming 'them' to be true, without you providing absolutely any thing at all to back up and support those beliefs and claims of yours, here, appears to be a behavior or yours that your are not able to change nor reform.

So, you are right, you are very incorrigible, here.

[Age]

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.

Well, obviously, not all are going to agree to the amounts of money and where that money gets spent. Which means that there will always be 'one' who does not, explicitly, agree. Therefore, 'it' is stealing, always.

Well according to 'the claim' above, here.

[Age]

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.

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.

But, is your own one and only definition, here, the one and only one, in Life, Itself?

Could some one 'taking' 'taxed money' to use for their own illegal personal use without intending to return it, be classed as 'stealing', even though 'the money', itself, was so-called 'obtained legally', through 'taxation'?

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

[Age]

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.

Again, 'this one' shows and proves how it is incorrigible.

'This one', still, keeps 'trying to' claim that that one tiny little insignificant parcel of land is, LOL, 'the greatest country on the face of the earth'.

And, as it will be proved, again, although there is not a single shred of proof, on the face of the whole earth, that could back up and support "walker's" belief, and claim, here.

[Age]

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

Once again, absolutely nothing.

[MikeNovack]

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.

But that is NOT the issue (how stupid you believe socialism to be, how bad you think it to be) << not just you IC, also others here who think that >>

It is that you appear to think that those in favor of socialism (whatever that might be*) should have no right to convince enough people that socialism (some form of) is what they should want, what they should cast their votes for. And if that is what the overwhelming majority come to want, that is what we should have.

I will repeat my question, what sort of system of government should we have? In the context of the original question, WHY do you call taxes imposed by a reasonable democratic government "stealing" (that the funds be used for "social services" not completely relevant -- or you just scared to put it bluntly "for any purpose I am against -- I do not ACCEPT the reasonably democratic decision"

What sort of system of government do you want?

* in spite of your belief that we of the left share a single vision,that's hogwash

[Gary Childress]

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.

So you are against having any social programs for the poor that are funded by taxes. Is that correct or not correct?

[Immanuel Can]

Jesus says that 'economics' is bullshit.

I don't recall Him saying any such thing. But maybe you can inform me.

At no point did Jesus prioritize economics over love of God or love of neighbor or love of self.

Actually, there's absolutely no "love of self" mentioned in his teachings, except as a negative...as in, don't do it. And as for "love of neighbour," I recall his illustration was that you voluntarily pay for their care...not that you provoke your government to extract it from them. But your theology would seem to need a little work, at least in any application to Socialism.

And your mathematics...definitely needs work.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

So you are against having any social programs for the poor that are funded by taxes. Is that correct or not correct?

No. I'm asking you how you fund social programs when everybody only gets $10,000. After that, what are you going to do? Tell me how you manage that.