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

[accelafine]

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.

Oh wow. Brilliant

[Immanuel Can]

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

Yeah, it has to be. If you don't have any money, you can't pay for anything. That's a pretty big issue, alright.

[Gary Childress]

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.

Why are you asking me that. I didn't propose that everyone should only get $10,000.

[Gary Childress]

This is what's frustrating IC. I think you're living in some weird distorted reality. You seem to run off on tangents that have no bearing on what's being discussed and are convinced that those unrelated tangents somehow refute something being discussed.

In any case, am I correct in thinking that you don't believe ALL taxation in order to pay for social programs is theft. Just some taxation that is used to pay for social programs is, is that correct?

[Age]

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.

How can you, supposedly, be 'pointing out' 'the truth', when you can not even 'think' nor 'talk' 'the truth'. 'Nations' are not and could not ever be 'nationalistic'. people, instead, can be 'nationalistic'.

And, either way you were, still, not saying absolutely any thing against what "accelafine" actually said, and wrote, above, here.

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?

What?

Again, you have said absolutely nothing, at all, in relation to what "accelafine" actually wrote, and said, here.

One only has to 'read' what "accelafine" wrote, very clearly, here, to recognize and see that you are, still, 'missing the mark', here.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Why are you asking me that. I didn't propose that.

If you're a Socialist, and you can count, you're asking people to live on $10,000 each, while the economy grinds to a halt, because nobody who cannot earn more than $10,000 will work, invest, invent or start anything.

And how impractical can you be?

[Gary Childress]

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.

Why are you asking me that. I didn't propose that.

If you're a Socialist, and you can count, you're asking people to live on $10,000 each, while the economy grinds to a halt, because nobody who cannot earn more than $10,000 will work, invest, invent or start anything.

And how impractical can you be?

OK. Hold up. I'm asking people to live on only $10,000 each if I am a "socialist"? Are you having some kind of delusion? Where have I (or for that matter other socialists) said anything about people living on only $10 ,000 each. I'm not following your train of thought. Are you sure you aren't derailed somewhere?

[phyllo]

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.

Why are you asking me that. I didn't propose that.

If you're a Socialist, and you can count, you're asking people to live on $10,000 each, while the economy grinds to a halt, because nobody who cannot earn more than $10,000 will work, invest, invent or start anything.

And how impractical can you be?

More IC bullshit

[Age]

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,

This '$10,000 red herring', as it can be called, keeps 'popping its head out of the water', here. as some might say and have also recognized.

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.

'This', here, makes me wonder if "Immanuel can" was ever aware of what the 'topic title' of this thread is, exactly.

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.

Well considering that absolutely no one, besides 'you' of course, has been talking about 'socialism', and the fact that 'you' keep talking about 'socialism', as though anyone else is, when no one is, some would say is an absolutely 'deadly stupid' thing to do.

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.

LOL
LOL
LOL 'wakey wakey'.

The question of 'this thread' is, 'Is it stealing for the government to tax people for social services?'

Now, you have already provided your very clear, astounding, 'Yes', response, and answer.

So, 'we' have one, 'Yes', for it is stealing when the government taxes people for 'social services'. And, "Immanuel can has, also, already admitted that it is not stealing when the government taxes people for inventing, designing, creating, and using more and more weapons of death and destruction.

So, 'we' all know where "immanuel can" 'stands', fixed, here.

[Age]

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.

But, no one besides you has 'suggested' 'this'.

So, why do you keep bringing 'it' up, here?

you were asked if you agree that when governments 'help' people, then this is stealing. you have already affirmed that you believe that 'this' is true.

End of story.

[Age]

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.

Are you under some sort of delusion that if every human being was given $10,000 or 10,000 pesos, that 'the price' of things, 'now', would stay 'the same'?

Obviously, 'the price' of things would change. Thus, it could become that absolutely every one is, equally, 'monetary rich'. And, thus not actually 'poor', at all.

See, things, in and of themselves, do not have any 'monetary value' upon them at all. 'Things' on 'cost', monetary wise, by what you human beings place upon them. So, you human beings could 'all' be 'monetary rich' by,

1. Just reducing 'the price' of things, while, still, paying "yourselves" the 'exact same amount of so-called money'.

2. And, if you were not 'trying to' be 'monetary richer' than 'another', or by just 'not wanting more and more money', or, in other words, 'being greedy', then you 'all' could be as 'monetary rich', as each other.

In fact creating a Truly peaceful, and harmonious, world really is extremely very simple, and very easy, indeed.

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.

Once again, 'this one' shows, and proves, why 'the world' is in such 'the mess' that it really is, in the days when this is being written.

In other words, through what Socialists know nothing about.

LOL
LOL
LOL

'This one' is, still, 'making up' 'things', which do not actually exist, here, but which 'this one' is, still, laughably, 'trying to' fight and argue against.

[Age]

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.

you are so absolutely blinded by your own 'superiority complex' that you, literally, can not see what is written before you.

you 'make up' 'some story' about what 'the other' is saying and meaning, which aligns with your own belief system, and then 'try to' argue against 'that'. Which, once more, is NOT what 'the other' is saying, and meaning.

One day you will, hopefully, come to see, and realize.

[Age]

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.

The, laughable, 'economics' of certain and particular people who wanted to keep 'the rest' 'monetary poor', and keep "themselves" 'monetary rich'.

And, that lie and deception has obviously 'worked', perfectly, on some people. Like "immanuel can", for example.

[Age]

Jesus says that 'economics' is bullshit.

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

you just were.

If any one knows any thing about "jesus", "itself", "jesus", once again, 'teaches' the exact opposite of what "immanuel can" is very, very desperately 'trying to' argue, and fight, for, here.

[Immanuel Can]

Why are you asking me that. I didn't propose that.

If you're a Socialist, and you can count, you're asking people to live on $10,000 each, while the economy grinds to a halt, because nobody who cannot earn more than $10,000 will work, invest, invent or start anything.

And how impractical can you be?

OK. Hold up. I'm asking people to live on only $10,000 each if I am a "socialist"?

Yep. You would have to. You'd have no choice.

Take the total world income, divide it by the number of people on the planet, and what you get is an income just under $10,000/year.

Now, I admit that figure's too high. Because it assumes there will be some form of income-generation to keep that going, and if Socialism is installed, there certainly won't be. The people who generate new wealth now will stop: because they won't be allowed to have it. Why would they work themselves to death, or take any special risks, if they're only allowed to have 10 grand at the end of the year? So it's likely to be whatever you can scrabble together within a failed economy, and considerably less than the ten grand, but let's pretend it's that much, just to be kind to Socialism.

The upshot is that if you're plugging for Socialism, you're promoting a plan that would reduce your income below poverty levels, and to barely above subsistence. And with that, you'd have no health care, no education funding, no infrastructure funding, no military, no funds for public projects of any kind...

Do the math. You're sending the world down a black hole, economically speaking.