Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, because there aren't enough of us, and we would basically have to give all our money to make any difference, and that would make us poor and indigent as well. So again, strawman argument, which you know no one would agree to
Why not?
If enough people are pooling money together voluntarily, there's still not enough money?
But somehow, if you ask the government to confiscate other people's money, there would be enough?
How is that a problem? Ask yourself very carefully why US society will not voluntarily donate enough money to artificially financial support the poor.
Answer: Doing so simply is NOT what US society values.
Too funny... "US society" doesn't donate enough to the Red Cross to take care of everyone who might be displaced in a natural disaster either, that's why we have FEMA.
Too funny... "US society" doesn't donate enough to the Red Cross to take care of everyone who might be displaced in a natural disaster either, that's why we have FEMA.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,646,508 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
Why not?
If enough people are pooling money together voluntarily, there's still not enough money?
But somehow, if you ask the government to confiscate other people's money, there would be enough?
It makes zero sense.
I already explained it, that the majority of the population would just spend the no longer taxed money on themselves, because most people are selfish and short sighted
I already explained it, that the majority of the population would just spend the no longer taxed money on themselves, because most people are selfish and short sighted
When people who continue to say such things, they demonstrate their inability to construct a real argument to support their claims so they resort to logical fallacies and rhetorical questions. Or perhaps stated more succinctly, it's an attempt to change the subject and avoid of the issue at hand
I already explained it, that the majority of the population would just spend the no longer taxed money on themselves, because most people are selfish and short sighted
LOL! I thought you didn't know this.
1. If you lead as an example, maybe people will change their minds.
2. Even they don't change their mind, it's still not the reason to rob them of their wealth.
3. I don't think "majority" is the proper term. The vast majority pays net zero or negative tax. "The have" or "those who have money" is the proper term. 4. Do you not realize how ridiculously selfish it is to force other people at gunpoint to pay for YOUR needs????? That's some extreme selfishness at a totally different level!!!
Last edited by lifeexplorer; 10-28-2017 at 09:19 AM..
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,646,508 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
LOL! I thought you didn't know this.
1. If you lead as an example, maybe people will change their minds.
2. Even they don't change their mind, it's still not the reason to rob them of their wealth.
3. I don't think "majority" is the proper term. The vast majority pays net zero or negative tax. "The have" or "those who have money" is the proper term.
4. Do you not realize how ridiculous selfish it is to force other people at gunpoint to pay for YOUR needs????? That's some extreme selfishness at a totally different level!!!
Yawn 🌒 You can bark until the cows come home, but you will not win, as I don't see taxation or SS or Medicare or the rest of the social safety net going anywhere
Yawn 🌒 You can bark until the cows come home, but you will not win, as I don't see taxation or SS or Medicare or the rest of the social safety net going anywhere
Once again, it doesn't make your vile, selfish and greedy attempt in way decent, moral, just or fair.
It still takes a vicious human garbage to support your notion.
1. If you lead as an example, maybe people will change their minds.
2. Even they don't change their mind, it's still not the reason to rob them of their wealth.
3. I don't think "majority" is the proper term. The vast majority pays net zero or negative tax. "The have" or "those who have money" is the proper term.
People can and do elect to do things through government that they could do other ways. It may well be to insure that they provide for themselves rather than be dependent on charity from the citizenry or the government. Social Security would be an example. This seems quite in keeping with the way in which the collective chooses to do things.
There are many required tasks for the society where various groups would choose to not participate if not required. Defense, Educating, Law Enforcement all would be obvious examples. But it could well extend to such practical things as roads, sewers and street lights.
So the citizenry makes a joint decision as to what will be compulsory. Neither bad nor good. But it is the will of the people. And yes compliance is forced as it is in any workable society.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
