America - The Official Thread

[Danoff]

400 billion in private charity? citation needed here.

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=private+charity+US+total&s=g

It's not even the first hit, it's the google-provided summary of the answer. No need to click a link.

Where did the donations go? For example Trump's charities were all in selfinterest when he was a private citizen.

For it to be considered a "charity" for tax purposes, it has to be established as an actual charity by the IRS.

And would the absence of taxes really increase that number?

Absolutely.

Would it be nearly enough to help people, since it costs t least 10x times as much currently? What about humanitary crisis, like tornados, tsunamies?

Private charity does a ton in those circumstances.

So human rights are in the eye of the beholder?

No. Some people don't understand what it means.

================================================================================================

Look, you're conflating multiple issues that have come up in this thread recently, and I think you're doing it on purpose. But for the benefit of anyone who has the willpower to read through this back and forth, I want to clarify.

Issue #1) Lobbying results from big government.

This issue has essentially be conceded every time it comes up, and it was basically conceded here again as well.

Issue #2) Taxation is theft

Not particularly related to issue #1. Right now, what you're trying to do is to make it seem like taxation is necessary for civilization. And I want to point out that even if you were correct (and I don't think you are), taxation would still be theft. Essentially the argument angle you've chosen is to not actually refute the original statement.

Like @Joey D I strongly prefer a sales tax to an income tax. If I had my way, it would be one of the very first items on the list - abolish the income tax and replace with a sales tax. Why do I say that instead of go tax-free? Because right now the US government simply cannot get from where it is currently to anything resembling a tax-free state without some form of taxation. I'd rather that the form made sense and had some semblance of voluntary action associated with it. Tax-free should be the ultimate goal, even if we can never get there.

The inability to achieve perfection right now should not stop you from pursuing it.

Issue #3) Charity should be voluntary

This is also not particularly related to the above two issues. You keep saying that people cannot rely on charity of others, and I keep reminding you that that is all they have. Even within government systems that steal and redistribute, they still rely on the charity of others to use their guns to steal property for them. It's still charity, just charity of a different sort. Charity should always be voluntary, not stolen from those who are not willing to give. If the amount of charity is insufficient, then people will suffer and charity will increase in response to the suffering.

 

[Joey D]

That is still relative though. If someone steals your phone. Yes it is theft. But if everyone in your family votes (including you) and the majority choses to let your private phone get taken away and in return everybody receives acces to the phone. Is that still theft in its purist definition?

If a majority says it's ok to take your property, it still doesn't make it right or any less of a theft. That's why I vote for candidates that don't want to steal my money, or at the very least support moving in that direction. It's why I can't vote Democrat or Republican, both those parties absolutely love to take money and squander it.

===

In regards to charity, never underestimate the power of social media. Rich people, especially rich people who like to be in the spotlight, will give a bunch of money to various charities so they can look good on social media. Even non-rich people will do it because getting likes for something is apparently a thing.

Conversely, social media can also guilt the ultra-rich into donating their money to various causes too.

If you took away government support for various social programs, I think the worthy ones would continue to survive just based on people wanting to make themselves look good and not wade through a PR poop storm.

 

[huskeR32]

In regards to charity, never underestimate the power of social media. Rich people, especially rich people who like to be in the spotlight, will give a bunch of money to various charities so they can look good on social media. Even non-rich people will do it because getting likes for something is apparently a thing.

Conversely, social media can also guilt the ultra-rich into donating their money to various causes too.

If you took away government support for various social programs, I think the worthy ones would continue to survive just based on people wanting to make themselves look good and not wade through a PR poop storm.

I think if there's one thing I've gleaned for sure from @PocketZeven's posting the last few pages, it's that he would say this is all fantasy land. And I agree.

You and I have been here before; the wealthy will very selectively donate to those they personally feel are worthy of their help. Many, many people will be left out in the cold, often due not to poor decisions, but something like their religion or their sexual orientation. Relying on charity strikes me as a good way to develop a caste system.

 

[Danoff]

You and I have been here before; the wealthy will very selectively donate to those they personally feel are worthy of their help. Many, many people will be left out in the cold, often due not to poor decisions, but something like their religion or their sexual orientation. Relying on charity strikes me as a good way to develop a caste system.

What if... I'm just thinking out loud here... what if the people who are charitable with guns... people who would vote for guns to be pointed at those with money.... what if those people, who can presumably be relied upon for their "charity", gave time or money instead of violence?

What if all those people who vote for social programs (theft), just opened their wallets and actually helped the people they don't want to be left out in the cold? What if that was their only option?

It's not so much that voluntary charity will absolutely be enough to satisfy all needs. It's that it's the only moral option on the table. And it should be the only legal option as well.

Edit:

You're contradicting yourself. You say there are people that no one wants to help, and that you want to help them.

 

[Exorcet]

I think if there's one thing I've gleaned for sure from @PocketZeven's posting the last few pages, it's that he would say this is all fantasy land. And I agree.

You and I have been here before; the wealthy will very selectively donate to those they personally feel are worthy of their help. Many, many people will be left out in the cold, often due not to poor decisions, but something like their religion or their sexual orientation. Relying on charity strikes me as a good way to develop a caste system.

What would you say is the reason that the government is so much better at promoting equality, and why is this attribute something that can only be achieved through traditional government (I presume)?

 

[Rallywagon]

You assume social assistence should be funded by voluntary donations. And suggest that should be enough.

But 400 billion in private charity? Where did the donations go though? For example Trump's charities were all in selfinterest when he was a private citizen. How many billions of those 400 billions were actually selfless? And would the absence of taxes really increase that number?

Would it be nearly enough to help people, since it costs t least 10x times as much currently? What about humanitary crisis, like tornados, tsunamies? These would also be funded from these private charities?

So human rights are in the eye of the beholder?


edit:


That is still relative though. If someone steals your phone. Yes it is theft. But if everyone in your family votes (including you) and the majority choses to let your private phone get taken away and in return everybody receives acces to the phone. Is that still theft in its purist definition?

And you sir, just did a great job of pointing out the biggest issue with straight democracy. The majority voting away the rights of the minority. And yes, it absolutely is still theft. Now your just doing it with a bigger gang

 

[mustafur]

Answer this then, before you made any income did you know there was going to be a tax?

 

[Danoff]

Answer this then, before you made any income did you know there was going to be a tax?

This morning I started working in order to earn my next paycheck. I knew that I would incur income tax in the process of earning that money. No this does not make it moral.

"Before you said that Muhammad was not a true prophet, did you know that the penalty was death?"

Right now an exchange of services for money is explicitly taxed (an exchange of services for goods is illegal), whereas an exchange of goods for money is not taxed (federally) (until it becomes ultimately treated like a service).

I prefer a sales tax to an income tax because I prefer the exchange to be taxed rather than the annual balance sheet.

 

[mustafur]

This morning I started working in order to earn my next paycheck. I knew that I would incur income tax in the process of earning that money. No this does not make it moral.

"Before you said that Muhammad was not a true prophet, did you know that the penalty was death?"

Right now an exchange of services for money is taxed (an exchange of services for goods is illegal), whereas an exchange of goods for money is not taxed (federally). I would prefer the latter tax to the former.

So now taxation isn't theft?

So long as it's done in your preferred way?

 

[Danoff]

So now taxation isn't theft?

So long as it's done in your preferred way?

No it's still theft. I just prefer one form to the other. One causes additional injury compared to the other.

 

[mustafur]

No it's still theft. I just prefer one form to the other.

But can you argue it's theft while the advantages supplied by that taxation still apply to the income(including partial creation of that income) before you even made it.

To have a valid claim you should be arguing for the services to be removed before complaining of the tax.

 

[Danoff]

But can you argue it's theft while the advantages supplied by that taxation still apply to the income(including partial creation of that income) before you even made it.

To have a valid claim you should be arguing for the services to be removed before complaining of the tax.

I don't see why but I'm pretty sure I argue for both the services to be removed and the tax. If you think I benefit from income tax, you've got another thing coming. I pay for quite a few other people.

 

[Joey D]

I think if there's one thing I've gleaned for sure from @PocketZeven's posting the last few pages, it's that he would say this is all fantasy land. And I agree.

You and I have been here before; the wealthy will very selectively donate to those they personally feel are worthy of their help. Many, many people will be left out in the cold, often due not to poor decisions, but something like their religion or their sexual orientation. Relying on charity strikes me as a good way to develop a caste system.

It might be fantasy land, but it's not more of a fantasy than thinking the government is capable of helping all people that need it and doing it equally. The government is woefully unequipped to provide aid and when it does, it wastes millions if not billions doing so.

And really, people get left out in the cold now by the government. One prime example is mental health care, which is terrible in the US and pretty much non-existent under Medicare/Medicaid. Another example is child welfare. It's grossly underfunded and many times foster kids get placed with a terrible foster family who just wants to collect a check. They don't care about the kid and only give them the basics to live. Let's not even get started about veteran care which until recently was atrocious.

At least with charity I could choose who I want to help instead of having my money go to support causes that I don't think are worthy or to organizations that misappropriate funds.

Answer this then, before you made any income did you know there was going to be a tax?

If you had parents/guardian/mentor/teacher who taught you anything about finance, you knew about income tax. When I was young, my parents used to take me to the accountant with them so I could see how taxes were done and they encouraged me to ask questions about it.

So now taxation isn't theft?

So long as it's done in your preferred way?

Income tax is akin to getting mugged with a gun pointed at you and if you refuse you get shot and the mugger then just steals everything.

Sales tax is akin to getting pickpocketed on the subway.

 

[mustafur]

I don't see why but I'm pretty sure I argue for both the services to be removed and the tax. If you think I benefit from income tax, you've got another thing coming. I pay for quite a few other people.

Sure I don't dispute your money goes to support other people but it's hard to argue that the tax you pay doesn't trickle back to your income(even if it's a small slice)given that it goes to such a variety of services that can benefit you or the people involved in supplying your income even if you don't even use them.

If you had parents/guardian/mentor/teacher who taught you anything about finance, you knew about income tax. When I was young, my parents used to take me to the accountant with them so I could see how taxes were done and they encouraged me to ask questions about it.



Income tax is akin to getting mugged with a gun pointed at you and if you refuse you get shot and the mugger then just steals everything.

Sales tax is akin to getting pickpocketed on the subway.

So how do you propose to pay for your rights protection?

Pay as you go and get as much rights protection as you pay?

 

[PocketZeven]

And you sir, just did a great job of pointing out the biggest issue with straight democracy. The majority voting away the rights of the minority. And yes, it absolutely is still theft. Now your just doing it with a bigger gang

The key I used in the example is “family”. Is it your opinion it is still theft within that context?

edit:
That said, democracy is always better then anarchy or an authotarian regime.

 

[Danoff]

Sure I don't dispute your money goes to support other people but it's hard to argue that the tax you pay doesn't trickle back to your income(even if it's a small slice)given that it goes to such a variety of services that can benefit you or the people involved in supplying your income even if you don't even use them.

You seem to see it as impossible that my income would go up in the absence of income tax, and I see it as inevitable. You seem to think that income tax generates more wealth than it costs, and I think it actually creates significant loss of value that benefits no one, and costs the economy as a whole.

Not only is the money that is taken from me (by force) and so generously offered to people who "need" it, but money is taken and wasted - producing nothing. And money is taken and spent destroying other value that would exist if not for the money taken from me. So much of what my government does with my taxes is a net cost to society. At a minimum, a decent portion of my income tax is turned into bombs and blown up, contributing to pollution, and probably convincing future generations to need blowing up as well. Some of my money is taken from me and given to other nations so that they can blow it up.

Some of my money is handed out in the form of aid in various countries around the world in the name of charity. And in some of those cases the aid either benefits local dictatorships, or causes local businesses to fail.

Some of my money funds bad artwork, artwork espousing views that I detest, or is spent creating regulations that stifle my investments or prevent innovation that might prolong my life.

Some of my money is spent tear-gassing would-be immigrants and building border walls.

My government, taken as a whole, is wasteful, inefficient, and often extremely counter-productive. When taken at its worst is murderous, thieving, and callous.


Edit:

At least if I was donating to old people who were in need of a living stipend, they would realize that it was charity. Right now they think they actually are entitled to my income.

 

[Rallywagon]

The key I used in the example is “family”. Is it your opinion it is still theft within that context?

edit:
That said, democracy is always better then anarchy or an authotarian regime.

Family, friends, coworkers, neighborhood, government, doesnt matter. Forcibly taking from someone to give to another, be it for moms hysterectomy or a government's general funds is theft.

 

[Joey D]

So how do you propose to pay for your rights protection?

Pay as you go and get as much rights protection as you pay?

@Danoff already explained how the government can make money without resorting to taxes and I agree with him. It wouldn't work in its current form of course, but with a smaller government on a stricter budget, it would.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I want every person who makes more than me to be taxed at 100%.

 

[mustafur]

You seem to see it as impossible that my income would go up in the absence of income tax, and I see it as inevitable. You seem to think that income tax generates more wealth than it costs, and I think it actually creates significant loss of value that benefits no one, and costs the economy as a whole.

Not only is the money that is taken from me (by force) and so generously offered to people who "need" it, but money is taken and wasted - producing nothing. And money is taken and spent destroying other value that would exist if not for the money taken from me. So much of what my government does with my taxes is a net cost to society. At a minimum, a decent portion of my income tax is turned into bombs and blown up, contributing to pollution, and probably convincing future generations to need blowing up as well. Some of my money is taken from me and given to other nations so that they can blow it up.

Some of my money is handed out in the form of aid in various countries around the world in the name of charity. And in some of those cases the aid either benefits local dictatorships, or causes local businesses to fail.

Some of my money funds bad artwork, artwork espousing views that I detest, or is spent creating regulations that stifle my investments or prevent innovation that might prolong my life.

Some of my money is spent tear-gassing would-be immigrants and building border walls.

My government, taken as a whole, is wasteful, inefficient, and often extremely counter-productive. When taken at its worst is murderous, thieving, and callous.


Edit:

At least if I was donating to old people who were in need of a living stipend, they would realize that it was charity. Right now they think they actually are entitled to my income.

But are you forced to make a taxable income(liabilities aside)?

 

[ryzno]

But are you forced to make a taxable income(liabilities aside)?

I'd say no, but I don't think he'd enjoy my "financial lifestyle".

 

[VolkswagenX]

Bombshell ABC tape leaked.

Epstein, the most prolific pedophile in US history?
"100% he was killed", "Ghislane Maxwell needs security guards all around her", "Who at ABC spiked the story, and why?"


https://www.projectveritas.com/2019...-bombshell-story-implicating-jeffrey-epstein/

This whole Epstein thing confirms to me that we are not living in a serious world.

 

[Liquid]

My query with abandoning social programmes is that I simply cannot believe that a government would actually reduce the rate of taxation so that you then had more disposable income in your pocket to spend on charities or other private enterprises.

 

[Dotini]

My query with abandoning social programmes is that I simply cannot believe that a government would actually reduce the rate of taxation so that you then had more disposable income in your pocket to spend on charities or other private enterprises.

Momentarily disregarding abstract philosophical puzzles, taxation cannot in practice be reduced due to almost catastrophic government debt levels. In Washington State, voters agreed to reduce car tab fees from $300 to $30 understanding full well our roads and bridges will fall down. Government can now only increase or create new taxation to limp along with aging infrastructure.

 

[Rallywagon]

Momentarily disregarding abstract philosophical puzzles, taxation cannot in practice be reduced due to almost catastrophic government debt levels. In Washington State, voters agreed to reduce car tab fees from $300 to $30 understanding full well our roads and bridges will fall down. Government can now only increase or create new taxation to limp along with aging infrastructure.

Well, I am sure the argument there will be, why does the governement have to worry about infrastructure, surely a private company can take care of it, and do it better.

 

[Danoff]

But are you forced to make a taxable income(liabilities aside)?

"Before you said that Muhammad was not a true prophet, did you know that the penalty was death?"

Yes but were you forced to say that Muhammad was not a true prophet?

Momentarily disregarding abstract philosophical puzzles, taxation cannot in practice be reduced due to almost catastrophic government debt levels. In Washington State, voters agreed to reduce car tab fees from $300 to $30 understanding full well our roads and bridges will fall down. Government can now only increase or create new taxation to limp along with aging infrastructure.

Generally I agree that government debt is a problem that, if the current government is to endure and transition into something less morally bankrupt and fiscally bankrupt, then it must cover its debts. We're far away from perfection, the road is long, and getting longer.

 

[Famine]

My query with abandoning social programmes is that I simply cannot believe that a government would actually reduce the rate of taxation so that you then had more disposable income in your pocket to spend on charities or other private enterprises.

It's the old turkey/Christmas thing. Government is resistant to the reduction of the scope of government, because nobody in it wants to vote themselves off the enormous gravy train.

Then again, so long as we have people who are adamant that the way it works is the way it should work, solely on the basis of being unable to imagine any other way working (and motivated by jealousy and spite), actually defending the insane corruption and wastefulness inherent in big government, they don't have to.

 

[PocketZeven]

Family, friends, coworkers, neighborhood, government, doesnt matter. Forcibly taking from someone to give to another, be it for moms hysterectomy or a government's general funds is theft.

If thats theft. Theft isnt neccesarily a bad thing.

 

[Danoff]

If thats theft. Theft isnt neccesarily a bad thing.

Yes, theft is a bad thing. But you're starting to adopt a more philosophically consistent position. You're now just failing the trolley problem, sacrificing 1 life to save 5. And there are so many reasons you can't do that ethically.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yes, theft is a bad thing. But you're starting to adopt a more philosophically consistent position. You're now just failing the trolley problem, sacrificing 1 life to save 5. And there are so many reasons you can't do that ethically.

Fair enough. I guess thats a discussion for another thread. I can talk for years about ethics. But for me the trolley problem is clear and cut.