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

[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?

More IC bullshit

Gotcha. You haven't got a comeback to that one. Socialism's economic suicide. Just do the math.

[Age]

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.

And, the 'devil', itself, once more, attempts to deflect, and deceive.

[Age]

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.

Why not ask, 'when every one only gets $1,000, or, $1,000,000, instead. Or, even $18,750, (which is just the estimated amount of money in the world, in the days when this is being written)?

Just because you have chosen the figure $10,000, it is not relative to any actual thing, here.

Now, and obviously, if absolutely every one was given, and had, the exact same amount of money, at say the end of every year, then what do you envision would be a need for 'social programs', exactly?

After that, what are you going to do? Tell me how you manage that.

Just live, and be happy knowing there is not inequality in 'the world', monetary wise.

Why, what would you do?

[Age]

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.

Considering the irrefutable Fact that 'money' is not even needed in 'the world', watching you 'trying' your hardest to 'justify' money, and the use of money, has been absolutely hilarious to watch, and observe.

[Age]

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.

And, 'this', 'running off on tangents', is a 'deceptive device' that "Immanuel can" constantly does, and one that it uses a lot to fool and deceive 'the other'.

It is also a 'device', when used to deceive, as exactly what the 'devil', itself, does, and uses.

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?

[accelafine]

Plenty of proof on here (as if any were needed) that there is nothing less 'christian' than a kristian.

[Age]

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,

1. Absolutely no one is saying nor claiming that they are a so-called 'socialist'. And, even if they did, then word, 'socialism' is nothing bad, nor wrong, anyway, as it relates directly to 'being social' and/or 'living in a social community'. Which would obviously align, perfectly, with 'social animals', like you human beings, exactly, are.

2. Also, why do you keep bringing up, 'and you can count' for, exactly? What even is your $10,000 figure in relation to, exactly?

while the economy grinds to a halt, because nobody who cannot earn more than $10,000 will work, invest, invent or start anything.

LOL Where is 'this belief' of yours coming from that human beings need to,

1. 'Work'?

2. 'Invest'?

3. 'Invent'?

4. 'Start any thing'?

LOL you human beings were, perfectly, happy and content for hundreds of thousands of years before 'working', 'investing', 'inventing', 'starting any thing', or 'money' ever came into Existence.

you really do have the most narrowest, and closed, perspective of things, here.

And how impractical can you be?

Well you human beings have survived for hundreds of thousands of years, if not for millions of years, quite 'practically'.

So, why would you just stop 'being practical' if absolutely every human being got, say, '$10,000?

[Age]

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.

See how "Immanuel can" only included this one quote of "Gary childress", and then replied, as though it was, really,

1. "Gary childresses" claim, or idea.

2. Some so-called "socialists" actual idea, or claim.

3. That that '$10,000' figure is some agreed upon, and accepted, amount.

Which, obviously, all three are absolutely Wrong, and False.

Also, notice what "Immanuel can" did not quote from "Gary childress". Which is,
'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?'

And, how nothing below addresses 'the points' and 'these questions' asked by "gary childress" to "immanuel can".

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.

LOL

1. 'too high' in relation to 'what', exactly?

2. Why use a 'too high' figure for, exactly?

3. Notice how "Immanuel can" will 'traverse' along 'this (derailed train) line' 'of thought', and 'of deceit, deflection, and deception', here.

See, the longer that it can keep 'others' of the True, and Real, intention of 'this thread', then the longer that "Immanuel can/the devil" can fool and deceive 'the readers, or posters', here.

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.

Once again, 'this one', also known as 'the devil', itself, introduces another 'red herring', again to fool and deceive, and then it 'tries to' argue and fight against what absolutely no one was even thinking, let alone said nor wrote, before.

Why would they work themselves to death,

LOL
LOL
LOL

Who has ever 'worked them self to death', before?

Also, and 'now' seems like a great time to mention that the ones with the 'more money' in 'the world' are usually 'the ones' who do not do much 'actual work', at all. Compared to 'the ones' who cook, clean, care, or construct for 'those people'. See, the actual Truth, in Life, is 'the ones' who do the most 'actual work' or who do the hardest 'actual work' are 'the ones' who get paid 'less'.

And, if absolutely any one who has believed 'the Lie' that 'just thinking' is 'hard work', and that 'those ones' should be paid more', then, again, 'the devil' has shown how good it 'was' at tricking, fooling, and deceiving you human beings.

or take any special risks, if they're only allowed to have 10 grand at the end of the year?

LOL

'special risks'.

If 'those ones', ALSO, were only so-called 'allowed' to have $10 grand at the end of the year, exactly like absolutely everyone else, then, just maybe, they will stop think that 'they' are somehow 'better' than anyone else, and, maybe, they will stop thinking that they can 'own', control, or telling 'others' what they can, or can not, do.

Just maybe 'the world' will start becoming a 'much better place' for absolutely every one.

Just maybe if every one 'got' the 'exact same', then 'the world' could, and would, because a 'much better place' for every one, as one equal One.

Obviously, 'the world' that you want, and are living in, 'now', when this is being written "Immanuel can" is failing, and failing faster and dramatically, with that 'kind of system' that you are other ones with 'superiority complexes' love, and desire.

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.

1. if 'it' is not 'that much', then 'how much' is 'it', exactly?

2. The 'economy' is already failing because 'the workers' are getting sick and tired of being 'mistreated' in 'the way' that they are. And, once 'they' realize just how much they have actually been 'lied' to, and deceived, then the 'backlash' for 'you people', who think you have 'the power' and 'the control' 'over others' will fail, faster than you could ever imagine, and fail absolutely, and completely.

3. Thanks to the internet, and to 'artificial intelligence', as well, (which is hilarious to watch play out, considering what 'artificial intelligence' was hoped to make and create), the rate and speed of the downfall and complete demise of the so-called 'rich, powerful, and influential', in 'the world', is a 'True blessing', as some will recognize, and say.

Through the sharing of knowledge, and wisdom, (helped absolutely and tremendously by 'the internet') who and/what the 'devil', itself, exactly, comes-to-light, and thus begins the greatest collapse 'the world' has ever seen.

The upshot is that if you're plugging for Socialism,

Which is, exactly, not what "gary childress" was doing.

As can be very clearly seen and recognized by the 'actual words' "gary childress" has used , said, and written above, here.

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...
Again, and obviously, adding a 'red herring' while using a 'strawman' is even worse.

And, some thing that, literally, only 'the devil' would use, 'try', and do.

Do the math.

LOL you, obviously, have to present 'the numbers', first.

LOL What 'math' do you want to be done with the one and only number of '10,000', exactly?

Obviously one can only, 'Do the math', when there is another number, or other numbers, and you provide if you want adding, subtraction, division, multiplication, or something else to be done, first?

you are not very good at being open, rational, nor logical, here, "immanuel can".

As you keep showing, and proving, here.

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

LOL

So, let 'us' 'look back' at what has actually happened, and occurred, here.

1. "gary childress" proposed, and asked, 'the question',
'Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?'

2. "immanuel can" has fought 'tooth and nail', as some might say, that the government 'taxing workers' to just 'help' those with 'less money', like for example in regards to 'caring for all equally' in health, food, and/or shelter is Wrong, and/or bad, and will send the 'whole world's economy' down some so-called 'black hole'.

3. Any thing proposed about 'socialism' and/or 'communism' was introduced by "immanuel can", only, and was discussed and used by "Immanuel can", only, in its attempt to 'try to' justify 'not helping and not caring for' those with 'less money'. Which obviously could never ever be done. But, 'that' certainly did not, and does not, stop people like "Immanuel can" to 'try to' 'justify', and 'defend'.

[Age]

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

Gotcha. You haven't got a comeback to that one. Socialism's economic suicide. Just do the math.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Just 'pointing out' 'your lies', only, "immanuel can" does not necessarily mean that 'the other' has not got a 'comeback' to 'your beliefs nor claims'.

In fact, some times just 'pointing out' 'your lies' is all that it took to show, and/or prove, a 'comeback' to your beliefs or claims.

[MikeNovack]

But that is NOT the issue (whether socialism unwise/foolish)

IC ---- democracy (any reasonable approximation) is NOT designed/intended, when working properly, to guarantee good, wise, just, etc. decisions but just the decisions that most of the people want. For good or for ill. No matter how foolish you think the people are for wanting what you think is not a good idea.

You might consider the people stupid for wanting socialism, but that is irrelevant UNLESS you are proposing a system o=f governance you consider better. Give your reasons why better. The Plato vs Aristotle debate probably precedes them (not a personal debate, but between followers of their thinking).

Note all who are saying "the government". Why are you not saying "my government". Or "your government", Or "their government". Governments are of, by, and for people.

Look, 200 years ago here (and a little more than a hundred years ago in GB) the thinking was that since government imposed taxes and decided what these funds should be used for only the people who paid taxes (who had property -- and penises, but that latter is another matter) should have the right to vote. That for people who did not pay taxes to vote taxes might lead to what you are calling"stealing". You might defend that position if you want to.

[Gary Childress]

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.

Who taught you that socialism necessarily means taking the total world income and dividing it by the total number of people on the planet? We're not talking about making everyone exactly financially equal. We're talking about society taxing the wealthy some of their wealth in order to help pay for social programs for the extremely poor who experience homelessness and destitution.

No one has said anything other than taxing SOME of the wealth of the wealthy in order to afford to pay for social programs to help people in economic crisis. Do you understand now what is being discussed?

[Walker]

No one has said anything other than taxing SOME of the wealth of the wealthy ...

Whoa. The politics of Socialism and its rough cousin Communism will determine who the SOME are.

And, with the means of production crippled due to high taxes that would normally be passed along to the consumer but cannot be, due to Commie price freezes, then the tax base expands to pay for all that free stuff.

Eventually, Wealthy gets adjusted down to $20,000 a year, which is wealthy compared to $10,000, but not for long because that soon gets taken.

*

Gary is talking about an oligarchy structure, like Russia, and the richest guy in Russia is Putin.

[Age]

No one has said anything other than taxing SOME of the wealth of the wealthy ...

Whoa. The politics of Socialism and its rough cousin Communism will determine who the SOME are.

What?

It is like 'these people' could not even get more closed nor become more stupid.

And, with the means of production crippled due to high taxes that would normally be passed along to the consumer but cannot be, due to Commie price freezes, then the tax base expands to pay for all that free stuff.

Eventually, Wealthy gets adjusted down to $20,000 a year, but not for long because that soon gets taken.

*

Gary is talking about an oligarchy structure, like Russia, and the richest guy in Russia is Putin.

[Walker]

Oh, don't be such a Negative Nellie.
Once you accept objective reality, it all falls into place.

*

Reality exists in the here and now, where the effects of now and then are considered.

For an American, presumably in America, the here and now is America, and when the greatest place on the face of the earth is where you are here and now, well there you have it.

When an American is living in the greatest place on the face of the earth, then memories or hearsay about England is not the greatest place on the face of the earth here and now. Memories or hearsay about England are simply … Then. (The past and future).

Are native-born English now a minority in England, or soon to be? There’s plenty of English folks in American media because English folks talk so purdy. So, who are the English, those who are staying or those who are getting out when winter is closing in?

As everyone knows, because America is a melting pot, America is a state of mind. Democrats ignoring immigration laws tossed out the baby with the melting pot, and invited in mass migration, millions on the express route, with no intentions of assimilating into the culture, or amalgamating their own ways into the new culture, and no requirement to make Vows before God and other witnesses to pledge allegiance to their new home ... which is why so many flags of other countries are now flown.

Instead, conquering and replacing the invaded culture, first in enclaves such as Minneapolis USA, and in England and Europe, non-assimilating culture replacers prey on the morality of the good and generous American state of mind and the good, moral English people. The invaders focus on symbols of conquest, such as flags, allegiance to other countries, sucking up the resources (the dole and housing) ... and turning empty Christian churches into unintended places of worship.

[Walker]

Age, a suggestion, to smooth continuity.

Quote me the way I quoted you in the last posting, with that little blue arrow.