Our friend below details this fairly well, but in a society where “my” taxes are a sign of ownership of debt, do you really think that’s healthy? How about the alternative where everyone has the same investment and therefore the same access to public goods and services? Feel free to double down, but I just don’t see the point of people arguing the necessity to own debts incurred on them from a structurally unsound social and economic system. It’s weird and has the aire of Stockholm Syndrome.
Yes? My labour, my earnings, my debt to society for what society does for me. Hence why my taxes include infrastructure costs that may be different from yours, since we live in different places.
Seems perfectly fair to me. I do more than a lot of people, so I earn more, and, as a result, the aid society gives me that allows me to work and earn is also more valuable to me.
I would incur more of a loss than someone who earns less, if I suddenly could not access my job which I go to with public transit, for instance, so reasonably I also pay a somewhat higher (but not proportionally higher) share of my income.
How about the alternative where everyone has the same investment and therefore the same access to public goods and services?
Ah you mean la-la land where logistics don’t exist and everything is equally accessible to everyone without coercion or forced labour?
I come from a country with very uneven, complex terrain to navigate.
The towns on the mountains are small, hard to reach, even with modern technology.
Do you think they will magically have equal access to hospitals, when there is physically less space for them to be built? When there is less room for people to live, and fewer people to begin with, how are they supposed to have equal access to services that require people to deliver them?
It’s a nice fantasy, but the reality is that equal theoretical access means jack shit. I know you’re probably american and your big issue is now people don’t even have theoretical equal access but, trust me, once you get past that barrier people don’t suddenly magically get everything they need. People need to be there to provide services and, short of enslaving them, they won’t necessarily be there, and if they’re there they will be more or less competent.
people arguing the necessity to own debts incurred on them from a structurally unsound social and economic system.
There are a lot of ways society may be unsound depending on who you ask, taxes being tailored to the income of people is the one thing even commies like you should be in agreement, since it’s literally “from everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their needs”, as long as there is a functional safety net.
In fact, big safety net neoliberal countries like most of northern Europe have done more measurable good to help raise the floor of quality of life in their own borders than socialism ever did, thanks in no small part to the understanding that society’s job is indeed to help fill the gaps where markets are inefficient, and not simply to go “ew, markets” and proceed to fuck up their own economies for fun and lack of profits.
I laughed during this entire tirade and gave you a thumbs up because of it. I’m a Dane and won’t return the insult of being labeled an American. But I don’t appreciate your tired arguments that privatization of public utilities is a necessary good, like what my own country did with its rail system. I don’t appreciate the reality of millions of hands that extend to reach safe borders to be told “no, we have too many workers already” when the issue isn’t “enough work” but private profit and governments colluding around the gold pile they’ve built. There is no societal burden except the ones we create for ourselves.
But I don’t appreciate your tired arguments that privatization of public utilities is a necessary good
Fucking hell man, are you absolutely sure you’re not American? Your reading comprehension is on par with their shittier states.
Where have I argued for privatization? Logistic concerns apply regardless of who is providing a service, even the state still needs employees to provide a service with their fucking work.
In fact, I’m from Italy, our healthcare system is public and subisidised, and I used that as an example because the state struggles to fill positions in rural and mountainous areas even though it has a mandate to fill them and no profit motive. At some point, if people are not willing to relocate to the middle of nowhere, they just aren’t gonna.
So that’s strike 1.
I don’t appreciate the reality of millions of hands that extend to reach safe borders to be told “no, we have too many workers already” when the issue isn’t “enough work” but private profit and governments colluding around the gold pile they’ve built.
AAAH I see the problem, you are arguing with your imaginary friend who is some insane neocon, and not someone with a basic grasp of liberal economics who defended the concept that richer people should pay more taxes than poorer people with an economically sound argument.
Gotcha. Say hi for me.
There is no societal burden except the ones we create for ourselves.
Right.
Infrastructure needs no maintenance, logistics aren’t real, people don’t spend their time and energy to make the things you consume!
Food materializes out of nowhere, no labour is involved in maintaining power plants, roads, bridges, hospitals, all the things that apparently come for fucking free.
And certainly not through paying fucking taxes.
I am not allowed to use words that better describe you on this site, so I will use what I can: American lefty in spirit.
Arrogant, self assured, catastrophically wrong, and you will never need to pay the price because you are surrounded, undeservedly, by people who know better and will prevent your cancerous ideas from being implemented.
Have fun paying YOUR tax bill, dipshit. You went so far off the path just to try and be ideologically superior it’s hilarious. Typical Italian attitude, though. Not surprised whatsoever.
Our friend below details this fairly well, but in a society where “my” taxes are a sign of ownership of debt, do you really think that’s healthy? How about the alternative where everyone has the same investment and therefore the same access to public goods and services? Feel free to double down, but I just don’t see the point of people arguing the necessity to own debts incurred on them from a structurally unsound social and economic system. It’s weird and has the aire of Stockholm Syndrome.
Yes? My labour, my earnings, my debt to society for what society does for me. Hence why my taxes include infrastructure costs that may be different from yours, since we live in different places.
Seems perfectly fair to me. I do more than a lot of people, so I earn more, and, as a result, the aid society gives me that allows me to work and earn is also more valuable to me.
I would incur more of a loss than someone who earns less, if I suddenly could not access my job which I go to with public transit, for instance, so reasonably I also pay a somewhat higher (but not proportionally higher) share of my income.
Ah you mean la-la land where logistics don’t exist and everything is equally accessible to everyone without coercion or forced labour?
I come from a country with very uneven, complex terrain to navigate.
The towns on the mountains are small, hard to reach, even with modern technology.
Do you think they will magically have equal access to hospitals, when there is physically less space for them to be built? When there is less room for people to live, and fewer people to begin with, how are they supposed to have equal access to services that require people to deliver them?
It’s a nice fantasy, but the reality is that equal theoretical access means jack shit. I know you’re probably american and your big issue is now people don’t even have theoretical equal access but, trust me, once you get past that barrier people don’t suddenly magically get everything they need. People need to be there to provide services and, short of enslaving them, they won’t necessarily be there, and if they’re there they will be more or less competent.
There are a lot of ways society may be unsound depending on who you ask, taxes being tailored to the income of people is the one thing even commies like you should be in agreement, since it’s literally “from everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their needs”, as long as there is a functional safety net.
In fact, big safety net neoliberal countries like most of northern Europe have done more measurable good to help raise the floor of quality of life in their own borders than socialism ever did, thanks in no small part to the understanding that society’s job is indeed to help fill the gaps where markets are inefficient, and not simply to go “ew, markets” and proceed to fuck up their own economies for fun and lack of profits.
I laughed during this entire tirade and gave you a thumbs up because of it. I’m a Dane and won’t return the insult of being labeled an American. But I don’t appreciate your tired arguments that privatization of public utilities is a necessary good, like what my own country did with its rail system. I don’t appreciate the reality of millions of hands that extend to reach safe borders to be told “no, we have too many workers already” when the issue isn’t “enough work” but private profit and governments colluding around the gold pile they’ve built. There is no societal burden except the ones we create for ourselves.
Fucking hell man, are you absolutely sure you’re not American? Your reading comprehension is on par with their shittier states.
Where have I argued for privatization? Logistic concerns apply regardless of who is providing a service, even the state still needs employees to provide a service with their fucking work.
In fact, I’m from Italy, our healthcare system is public and subisidised, and I used that as an example because the state struggles to fill positions in rural and mountainous areas even though it has a mandate to fill them and no profit motive. At some point, if people are not willing to relocate to the middle of nowhere, they just aren’t gonna.
So that’s strike 1.
AAAH I see the problem, you are arguing with your imaginary friend who is some insane neocon, and not someone with a basic grasp of liberal economics who defended the concept that richer people should pay more taxes than poorer people with an economically sound argument.
Gotcha. Say hi for me.
Right.
Infrastructure needs no maintenance, logistics aren’t real, people don’t spend their time and energy to make the things you consume!
Food materializes out of nowhere, no labour is involved in maintaining power plants, roads, bridges, hospitals, all the things that apparently come for fucking free.
And certainly not through paying fucking taxes.
I am not allowed to use words that better describe you on this site, so I will use what I can: American lefty in spirit.
Arrogant, self assured, catastrophically wrong, and you will never need to pay the price because you are surrounded, undeservedly, by people who know better and will prevent your cancerous ideas from being implemented.
Better lucky than smart.
Have fun paying YOUR tax bill, dipshit. You went so far off the path just to try and be ideologically superior it’s hilarious. Typical Italian attitude, though. Not surprised whatsoever.