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

[Impenitent]

Hershey PA
3 miles near
empty assurance
nothing to fear
hush it quick
the cows are sick
awww and there's nothing like the face of a kid
eating radioactive chocolate forever and ever


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5tBJCnTIYI

-Imp

[Age]

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?

Socialists did. They're inevitably globalists -- unless they want to restrict "equity" to their own country, in which case, they're National Socialists, or Nazis. And I'm not assuming you're one of those.

So, who are these so-called "socialists", exactly, who, supposedly, 'taught' you what you say and claim, here?

And, what do 'they', (if 'they' really do exist), have to do with what absolutely any one has said and written, here, in this thread?

We're not talking about making everyone exactly financially equal.

That's exactlly what Socialist "redistribution" promises.

Who cares, and, so what?

What has any of 'that' got to do with whether you agree 'helping' those with less money who need actual 'help' through 'taxing' is so-called 'stealing' or not?

Everybody gets an equal share. Nobody has "privilege." No more "hierarchy." And total "inclusion." Don't you watch their language?

you, obviously, bring in what are referred to as 'red herrings' and 'strawmans', and thus create fallacies, here. Do you not watch what you do, here?

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.

Well, you should be happy, then. That already happens.

Great, you are, finally, 'back on track'.

Now, do you want to keep 'trying to' defend 'your fixed position' that 'this' is actually 'stealing' and/or 'theft'?

I was under the delusion that you were mad that people had more money than you.

So you're no longer a Socialist. Congratulations.

See, how once again 'this one' 'tries' so, so very hard to deflect? it does 'this' in an attempt to deceive people away from its views and beliefs, which it knows, instinctively, that it could never ever justify, nor prove True, nor Right.

[Age]

Congratulations on not believing that all taxation is theft. You seemed to state the opposite prior to this.

No, I've said all along that some government is a necessary evil, and that some taxation, for things such as infrastructure and civil defense, is necessary. But I've said that it should be minimal. So that's been my position all along.

Again, 'this one' is not clear at all.

What do you mean by 'some government' is 'evil', exactly?

Why is infrastructure and civil defence 'necessary', to you, but you do not mention healthcare, aid, food, or shelter being 'necessary' things?

What is the 'it', exactly, which you claim 'should be minimal', here?

And, what, exactly, is 'your position', here? Do you think that it is 'stealing' for the government to tax people for social services, or not?

'your position', here, is not clear at all, and nothing like how clear 'your other position' is about how a 'male' created every thing all at once and that as long as you say you believe in that 'thing with a penis', then, after you die you are allowed to go 'somewhere' that is called 'heaven' and live in peace and harmony for eternally after.

'We' all, very clearly, know 'your position' on 'that', but because 'you' are way too scared to openly and honestly admit 'your actual position' on this thread title, 'you' are being very unclear, here.

[Age]

I am simply not a "one worlder".

Well, that's good: because it's a doomed prospect, and as you suggest, would eliminate a whole lot of 'diversity.'

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, the self-proclaimed "christian", here, is laughably 'now' claiming that what God has planned for every one is not viable, and even a 'doomed prospect'.

LOL How many times is "immanuel can" going to keep contradicting "its" own 'self', here?

Mind you, I don't see how "diversity" is ever a virtue, in itself. To say something is "diverse" can mean it is, as some would prefer us to think, "interestingly various," or "free," or "able to access different views," or "enriching." But "diverse" also means, "incoherent," or "cacophonic," or "disordered," or "relativistic," or "torn by sectarian strife," or "irreconcilable," or "fragmented," or any number of other bad things.

No it does not.

The word, 'diverse', is more or less just referring to 'variety', only. Of which there obviously, and irrefutably, is.

So any appeal to the moral virtue of "diversity" has to be filled out with a coherent explanation of what is "diverse" and what is to be unified.

As already explained, the word, 'diverse', is just referring to 'variety', and, the word, 'unified', refers to not bickering, arguing, nor fighting with one another. you know like as in how God wants you human beings to live in peace, and in harmony, together, as One. There really is absolutely nothing hard nor complex, here.

Oh, and by the way, has absolutely anyone else, here, (besides you of course who has), made any claim about 'diversity' being any so-called 'moral virtue'?

If no, then why 'bring up' and 'introduce' another 'red herring' for? Why create another 'strawman', here?

b) Might I humbly suggest that we won the cold war because Chernoibyl went one way and Three Mile Island the other.

Chernobyl? I've never hear even one person suggest that had anything to do with the collapse of the Russian Empire. Rather, I think that disaster was a symptom, but not a cause. Nor would I think that if Three Mile Island had been worse, the US would have collapsed. Rather, the bad Socialst economics of the USSR killed the Russian Empire. It fell because it was utterly unsustainable economically, not because one reactor went bust.

That free markets would be unable to adjust to bring things back into balance (as free market theory calls for). So that in THESE cases, some sorts of regulation would be required. In other words, SOME "socialism" introduced.

Socialism is a totalizing doctrine. There's no sense in speaking of "some Socialism," anymore than there is of speaking of "some pregnancy." Socialism by definition requires State ownership of all the means of production. And some market regulation by law is not at all indicative of "some Socialism." It merely happens because everything human beings do is flawed in some way; and we try to balance that with laws protecting the rights of private citizens.

There's nothing "Socialist" about that. One can do it with a constitution, an oversight body, a local council, or a set of general market regulations...one needs no speck of the ideological rubbish that's bound up in the term "Socialism."

[accelafine]

Humans self-organise just like everything else-- from the most primitive organisms up. Forcing the opposite creates chaos. DUH!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Pure, unadulterated communism is our only hope.

[MikeNovack]

And some market regulation by law is not at all indicative of "some Socialism." It merely happens because everything human beings do is flawed in some way; and we try to balance that with laws protecting the rights of private citizens.

There's nothing "Socialist" about that. One can do it with a constitution, an oversight body, a local council, or a set of general market regulations...one needs no speck of the ideological rubbish that's bound up in the term "Socialism."

By now, you should know me better, that there would be method behind specific examples.

Pork vs milk (and why, since you consider taxes used for social purposes stealing/socialism, that might come into play).

Both pork producers and milk producers can make immediate SMALL adjustments to increase supply in response to greatly increased demand. demand. If the demand doubled, pork producers would make long term changes to try to meet that demand. Dairy farmers would not go beyond the short term measures like keeping inefficient cows that would otherwise be culled and switch to three times a day milking*. They would NOT (if just marketforces) try to double production. WHY? The difference between the biology of pigs and cows. The pig raisers could double production in under two years. Pigs have many babies at a time and a gilt can be bred at about 8 mo of age. Market weight at about that age too.

But cows are different, one calf at a time, A dairy heifer MIGHT first have a calf at two years old. Only about 30% of calves born can become decent milkers (remember HALF are males). So at least SIX YEARS to double milk production. Remember the requirement of TIMELY response to market condition changes. The dairy farmer needs to know not the demand now but the demand 5+ years in the future to act rationally. Too uncertain.

OK -- so how could a government/society induce dairy farmers to increase production?. The easiest way is by providing a guarantee. It's a "look, maybe during those years when people who now want milk (but cannot afford it) will become accustomed to drinking something else. In which case we guarantee buying the milk at price X". Now possibly the demand will remain high, no damage. But if not, the government will need to use some tax money for this social program (milk price support).

DIVERSITY --- Not the bugaboo usage of the term. Do you want a world or a country where everybody looks the same, speaks the same language, eats the same food, etc?. Even HERE. Don't you sometimes go out to eat in a Chinese restaurant, sometimes Italian, etc. Wouldn't it be BORING all the same. It is nonsense in THIS country (and in many others) to be frightened by "diversity" because have had it all along << if you don't think different regions of the US somewhat different, you're just not paying close attention.





* The milking "robots" effective but COSTLY (rare, but the closest dairy farm to us has one). With these, the cows are milking themselves when they feel uncomfortably full so equivalent to the higher yield of three times a day.

[Immanuel Can]

OK -- so how could a government/society induce dairy farmers to increase production?.

They should not. What has government got to do with it?

Milk production should be determined by its demand, by market forces, not artificially induced by bureaucratic fiat. And the same is true of all goods: if there's a demand, then producers will produce them. If there's not such a demand, then they'll produce less. Everybody understands what is in his/her own fiscal interests.

DIVERSITY --- Not the bugaboo usage of the term.

"Bugaboo usage"? Eh?

Do you want a world or a country where everybody looks the same, speaks the same language, eats the same food, etc?.

It's not about what anybody wants. Nor is people-diversity the only kind in view. It's about what diversity itself means. And it means some good things, and some bad things. To talk only about the bad things would be unbalanced; so would it be, if one were only to talk about the good things.

Whether any situation needs more "diversity" depends on the situation itself, and on what kind of "diversity" is being implied. It's certainly not the case that anything "diverse" is automatically an improvement. It may be...it may not be.

[Gary Childress]

Diversity just is. There is no good or bad about it.

[Immanuel Can]

Diversity just is. There is no good or bad about it.

No, there are good things about it. There are also bad things. And whether or not you want more will depend on your knowledge of both.

[accelafine]

I wonder if IC minds all the stealing that goes on in the name of religious 'charities'. And they don't even have to pay tax. Using religious guilt to suck people dry.

[Age]

Diversity just is. There is no good or bad about it.

No, there are good things about it. There are also bad things. And whether or not you want more will depend on your knowledge of both.

So, what are the so-called 'good' things about 'variety', itself, and, what are the so-called 'bad' things about 'variety', itself?

Now, if you want to define the 'diversity' word in another way, here, then inform 'us' of what the 'diversity' word is referring to, to you, exactly.

[Age]

I wonder if IC minds all the stealing that goes on in the name of religious 'charities'. And they don't even have to pay tax. Using religious guilt to suck people dry.

Tax payers money used for so-called "christian" religious 'teachings' and 'charities' would be perfectly fine and acceptable to "immanuel can". If, however, tax payers money was used for all other religious 'teachings' and 'charities', then 'this' would be absolutely 'stealing', and 'theft', to "immanuel can".

[Immanuel Can]

I wonder if IC minds all the stealing that goes on in the name of religious 'charities'.

That's an interesting assumption. You suppose that we all "owe" taxes already? Governmental theft is just built into your suppositions, then?

Take the income tax. It was introduced during WW1, with the promise that it was strictly a war measure, and that after the war, it would be withdrawn. Needless to say, the government never withdrew it. They lied. And they continued to madate income theft from the general populace perpetually afterward. But it was never voluntary, never voted on, never democratic...it was institutionalized by way of the war measures act.

And because you've always had to pay income tax, you've converted this into a "government right" to skim from your income perpetually. And you're irate that there might be people or more properly, social causes, that might escape some of this governmental grift? If the food bank supported by our local churches doesn't pay taxes, you're going to penalize them for feeding the poor voluntarily? And you're going to accuse those who are serving the poor of theft?

An interesting inversion of values. In that view, government has an "unalienable right to steal," and nobody has a right not to be stolen from...including charities, whose money serves the very social programs you claim to value?

Interesting pattern of thinking, that.

[Alexiev]

I wonder if IC minds all the stealing that goes on in the name of religious 'charities'.

That's an interesting assumption. You suppose that we all "owe" taxes already? Governmental theft is just build into your suppositions, then?

Take the income tax. It was introduced during WW1, with the promise that it was strictly a war measure, and that after the war, it would be withdrawn. Needless to say, the government never withdrew it. They lied. And they continued to madate income theft from the general populace perpetually afterward. But it was never voluntary, never voted on, never democratic...it was institutionalized by way of the war measures act.

And because you've always had to pay income tax, you've converted this into a "government right" to skim from your income perpetually. And you're irate that there might be people or more properly, social causes, that might escape some of this governmental grift? If the food bank supported by our local churches doesn't pay taxes, you're going to penalize them for feeding the poor voluntarily? And you're going to accuse those who are serving the poor of theft?

An interesting inversion of values. In that view, government has an "unalienable right to steal," and nobody has a right not to be stolen from...including charities, whose money serves the very social programs you claim to value?

Interesting pattern of thinking, that.

Come off it! Of course income tax was controversial once. So are other governmental taxes, policies, and platforms. So what? That doesn't mean that such taxes are "theft". Why would it? As I wrote earlier in this thread, theft is defined as illegally taking someone else's property without permission. Taxes are legal, therefore (as anyone with the slightest ability to reason logically could tell you) they are not theft. Do they resemble theft in certain ways? Of course. But calling them theft is such an egregious misuse of the language that the propaganda value of the term is not only lost, but he who uses it loses all credibility. Slaves ate with wooden spoon. Does that mean eating with wooden spoons is a form of slavery?

Also, did you see my post about how the top 10% of U.S. citizens nab $560k per person a year out of the GDP, while the remaining 90% share $31k each (I'm quoting the number from memory). The supposed "unfairness" doesn't bother me -- but whom are we to collect tax dollars from? The $560k, or the $31k?