General discussion

Locked

I am a socialist who believes in paying taxes for the greater good

By maxwell edison ·
I received an email from a peer (it was a nice email) who said that he/she was a socialist who believes in paying taxes for the greater good.

We've all heard this before, of course -- the greater good. But you people (you greater good people), you and I both know that your greater good coincides exactly with your individual best interest -- but you wish to force others to serve your best interest. You are either one who believes in equality of outcome, thereby taking from others that which you do not have; or you are a wealthy elitist (yes, there are wealthy elitists in socialist systems) who wishes to keep people from achieving their true potential, or keep them mired in mediocrity servng your wants and needs.

Very few people are naive' and ignorant enough to actually believe that mankind can actually live as one big happy family -- from all according to his ability, to all according to his needs (although there are some, I suppose). You don't fool me with your greater good nonsense. You simply want something that others already have or will have. You simply want others to serve your best interest.

And people don't realize how much "socialism" we actually have in America! (Or they simply won't admit it.)

P.S. Another way of proving that your greater good equals your own individual interest is that you fail to consider and/or you simply ignore the fact that another's definition and view of greater good might be (and will be) different than yours. However, you insist on imposing your view of the greater good on others, regardless of how contrary it might be to them.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

127 total posts (Page 1 of 13)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Wasn't a good way to say it that

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to [i]I am a socialist who b ...

You agree that taxes are necessary in a community. So do I.
In fact to disagree would indicate you were an anarchist.
What those taxes should pay for, well that's a whole new ball game.

As far as I'm concerned, the greater good is a side effect. Any safety net to catch those struck by intentional misfortune, can catch me as well. If I don't persuade others of that, then my *** in in the abyss, because one of your capitalists chums decided to maximise shareholder value and outsource my role.

As for Marx, well he was a sadly deluded extremist, so you have more in common with him than you think.

I don't what socialism you have in America either, haven't seen any evidence of any ever, lots of liberals though . What you have is the welfare vote, a very different animal altogether.

Collapse -

Are there no workhouses?

by Absolutely In reply to Wasn't a good way to say ...

Any safety net to catch those struck by intentional misfortune, can catch me as well. If I don't persuade others of that, then my *** in in the abyss, because one of your capitalists chums decided to maximise shareholder value and outsource my role.

Marx is even more recent than the factory system, before which people helped out their neighbors in times of bad luck. That system allows easy differentiation of freeloaders from unlucky folk, and does not waste resources with centralized collection, followed by nationwide redistribution, of wealth. National safety nets just waste resources which would otherwise do more good (1) to those in need (2) preventing them from being chronically in need (3) helping many others never be in such need as to depend on handouts.

Collapse -

People who want a "safety net". . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to Are there no workhouses?

.....want it to get bigger and bigger using other people's materials.

Collapse -

Really

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to People who want a "safety ...

That's me as well is it?
Continuously employed and paying considerable taxes (UK remember) since July 81.

Anymore asinine generalities to spout?

I've told you before you can opt out of welfare anytime you like.

As long as I can opt out of stupid wars, naff legal systems, mediocre education, support of monopolies, graft, corruption, lobbying, big government, and dumb *** nanny state crap like the war on drugs.

Collapse -

The people I'm primarily talking about are. . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to Really

.....those who are working and able, but want to continually widen the safety net for others (see note). And over here (I don't know about the UK), "tax the rich" to pay for it is the common mantra. (Of course, "the rich" is a matter of debate.) It's often said that (the U.S. version of) a liberal is willing to give the shirt off somebody else's back.

Note: Of course these "working stiffs" who favor tax increases (on the rich?) to pay for myriad programs (to cover both the able and unable), then must resort to using them (and favoring them) themselves because, as you said, you pay considerable taxes to fund the whole show. So in a way, you favor such a "safety net" for yourself as well, don't you?

Opt out? I don't think so, Tony. You could no more "opt out" of your system that I could ours. And regardless of how "good intentioned" such systems might (initially) be, they cause more harm than good. Of course, you and I will probably never agree on such a thing.

Collapse -

Actually we seem to agree opt out is a bad thing

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to The people I'm primarily ...

we agree that the 'minority' is the target for taxes. We agree that claims for the greater good are utter garbage.
We agree that welfare fails the very people it's meant to protect.

My argument against the altruism twaddle was that the safety net would catch me as well.

Taxes on the rich is a misnomer. In terms of collecting income. 1% on the base rate will gain more revenue than 50% on the top rate. Equally that 1% is more valuable to the working stiff than it is to the 'rich' person.
There will always be and always should be a differential. Any sane society should attempt to narrow it, the only way nto do that is to raise the base, lowering the peak achieves next to nothing. They'll just pay their accountants to work harder dodging the burden.

It's a damn soundbyte, just like holding up those on welfare as scroungers, or socialists as thieves.
The efficiency of thge provision is certainly worth looking at. Whether some lateral thinking could get roound it altogether is worth looking at.

But somewhere somewhen if the state doesn't provide from taxes what needs providing, then it will be provided from some other part of your income.

Collapse -

The state, generally speaking, should not provide for individual needs.

by maxwell edison In reply to Actually we seem to agree ...

Do you agree or disagree?

Collapse -

Opt-in would be OK, if the system is also privatized.

by Absolutely In reply to Actually we seem to agree ...

Some employers, and creditors, offer plans, for a small fee, that in effect insure against unemployment. These are available on an opt-in basis and are affordable to those providing them, in contrast to the government, which is deeply in debt, and projects its "protected" social security account to be on its way, irrevocably, to bankruptcy also. An inconvenient truth is that welfare statism can't work for long.

Collapse -

To Maxwell.

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Actually we seem to agree ...

Disagree completely

How can you say policing doesn't meet an individual need, or a transport network, or national defence.

If the things we do as a community didn't meet a general individual need we wouldn't do them.

The whole point of community is to provide as a group what it would be impossible to provide for yourself as an individual.

The system we both enjoy success in, guarantees that not everybody can provide for themselves.

Collapse -

To Abs

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Actually we seem to agree ...

Agreed.
Institutionalised welfare is a long term disaster.

I could afford to pay in to private health care, I could afford unemployment insurance.

I can't afford them and public though, not without giving up much else.

It's a horrible fact but our economies are not strong enough to pay everyone a living wage.
If you take out the contribution that those of us who can afford it, there won't be enough left to provide for others.
Those on the poverty line, are unemployed more often and ill more often.

Employees are costs, less of them equals more profit. We'll never do anything about welfare in a system where that is true.

Back to Software Forum
127 total posts (Page 1 of 13)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums