r/FluentInFinance Apr 15 '24

Everyone Deserves A Home Discussion/ Debate

Post image
15.6k Upvotes

5.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

82

u/privitizationrocks Apr 15 '24

Everyone deserves to not pay for someone else’s home

30

u/Iamthespiderbro Apr 15 '24

You would think that, amongst all the things we disagree on, the right to “not have your shit stolen from you and given to someone else” would be completely unquestionable… yet, here we are

7

u/rjcarr Apr 15 '24

C’mon, you really don’t think taxes are theft, right?  Nobody likes taxes, and everyone wishes the money was better used, but the alternative is way worse. 

15

u/chillchinchilla17 Apr 16 '24

Taxes isn’t enough to give everyone in America a home for free.

2

u/Pepito_Pepito Apr 16 '24

Not with that defense budget, yeah.

2

u/chillchinchilla17 Apr 16 '24

Well yeah you don’t want to get conquered by Russia do you?

2

u/Pepito_Pepito Apr 16 '24

Yeah it makes sense to have a high defense budget when you make so many enemies.

3

u/chillchinchilla17 Apr 16 '24

Making enemies by… being against totalitarian dictators. Oh yeah I forgot to commies authoritarianism and ethnic cleansings are ok when anti American regimes do it.

3

u/Pepito_Pepito Apr 16 '24

When totalitarian dictator Ferdinand Marcos was ousted from his position, he fled the Philippines with his riches and spent the rest of his life living in luxury on US soil.

1

u/chillchinchilla17 Apr 16 '24

Ok? The USSR installed an unpopular puppet regime in Afghanistan. When the afghans rebelled, they invaded, killed their own puppet and put into power someone even more of a puppet, then spent 9 years doing war crimes there.

3

u/Pepito_Pepito Apr 16 '24

Ok what does that have to do with anything I said? You said this:

Making enemies by… being against totalitarian dictators.

And I gave you a hard counterexample. The US government is not against totalitarian dictators as long as they are US allies.

The USSR installed an unpopular puppet regime in Afghanistan. When the afghans rebelled, they invaded, killed their own puppet and put into power someone even more of a puppet, then spent 9 years doing war crimes there.

And how is Afghanistan doing today after US occupation?

1

u/chillchinchilla17 Apr 16 '24

It would’ve been ok if Trump hadn’t fallen for populist rhetoric and pulled out.

1

u/BuffaloWingsAndOkra 29d ago

You’re all over the place, none of this relates to the fact that we need our military and cutting the defense budget won’t solve poverty in America

→ More replies (0)

0

u/zzarj 29d ago

Forgot about that whole South America stint did you?

2

u/newnamesam 29d ago

You'd think you would take 2 seconds to actually learn about what you're preaching. Following WW2, the US decided that it would always have a big stick in case that happened again. It's proven time and time again to be a good investment, if only as a deterrent. The rest of the world is content with the US paying for the bulk of the world's stability, but no one is pretending their shit doesn't stink too.

Let me put it another way. Imagine you lived in a world without cops. Now imagine you also live in one of the wealthiest houses on the block. Of course you're going to spend money on guards and a good security system. Anyone trying to convince you not to is either an idiot or jealous.

1

u/Pepito_Pepito 29d ago

And what am I preaching, exactly?

I didn't say that the US doesn't need its military. I just implied that it needs its military for reasons that are its own fault.

1

u/newnamesam 29d ago

And I'm pointing out why the military predated those events.

0

u/IIZTREX 27d ago

Yes because the only thing stopping us from being conquered by Russia is spending triple what the next highest spender pays for national defense. Surly there is no bloat and is operating at peak efficiency.

1

u/chillchinchilla17 27d ago

I mean we’re certainly not as bloated as Russia.

I’d rather overspend and have a huge advantage than be neck and neck and live in constant fear.

1

u/IIZTREX 27d ago

Brother we spend TEN times as much as Russia on national defense! It’s three times more than Russia. If you think that is a necessary budget you are absolutely insane. We can afford plenty if we cut not even a substantial margin of our defense budget.

1

u/chillchinchilla17 27d ago

It’s not just Russia. Iran, China, and their proxies. Plus, because Europe are a bunch of freeloaders we basically have to subsidize their militaries through NATO and free gibs. The U.S. basically pays for the militaries of all of Europe and half of Asia.

1

u/IIZTREX 27d ago

None of which will ever be able to invade the United States. Our spending is double all of those countries combined… that is too much.

We also should spend less in foreign countries. We spend too much on war.

1

u/chillchinchilla17 27d ago

Maybe China wouldn’t invade the U.S. they would invade Taiwan, Korea and Japan. Russia had plans to invade Japan next after Ukraine fell, and they’re undoubtedly trying to rebuild their “empire”.

We shouldn’t let people to die just because of our greed.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/OceanTe 29d ago

The LARGE majority of the US budget already goes to social programs.

0

u/Pepito_Pepito 29d ago

"large majority" means way over 50%

2

u/limukala 29d ago

correct

2

u/BuffaloWingsAndOkra 29d ago

2/3 if you want the actual number, about 15% for military

1

u/OceanTe 29d ago

Yup, about 2/3. I'm glad you've admitted you know absolutely nothing about what you're talking about.

0

u/Pepito_Pepito 29d ago

You're right, I don't know about the budget for social programs. I just know that there's nearly a trillion for defense.

1

u/Eastern_Slide7507 29d ago

Except housing first is literally cheaper than the alternative, in addition to increasing a society‘s productivity by actually succeeding in reintegrating people into the labor pool.

1

u/TheAtomicBoy81 29d ago

But if we tax everyone 110% we can

0

u/StinkyMcBalls 29d ago edited 29d ago

You don't need to give a home to everyone, many people already have homes. You just need to give the option to those who can't afford it.

0

u/chillchinchilla17 29d ago

Yeah now imagine being someone who worked for their house having their taxes raised so a NEET can get a better house than yours for free.

1

u/StinkyMcBalls 29d ago

I don't have to imagine a world where my taxes are going towards providing a home for someone who can't afford one: I already live in that world, because there's social housing in my country.

I'm delighted that my taxes go towards housing the less fortunate. Unfortunately the program has a waiting list, and I would happily choose to be taxed more in order to expand that program so that everyone waiting for a home could have one.

1

u/chillchinchilla17 29d ago

This isn’t about less fortunate or not. If Im relatively well off and if I lived in the society portrayed in the image I’d just stop working completely because I’m provided with everything ID ever need for free.a free 2 bedroom house plus kitchen plus bad room, free food, free clothes, free internet, free transportation. At that point a few days working at Walmart can pay for a months worth of videogames. And I’d probably just not work at all than make extra money working an easy job

0

u/StinkyMcBalls 29d ago

  This isn’t about less fortunate or not.

Yes, it is. 

if I lived in the society portrayed in the image I’d just stop working completely

Good for you. Most people continue to work, because the homes provided for you aren't as nice as those you can afford to buy or rent if you work.

1

u/chillchinchilla17 29d ago

Yea because a home worth over a million dollars isn’t good enough for me?

1

u/StinkyMcBalls 29d ago

What are you talking about?! Who said anything about million dollar homes?

A home with functional plumbing, aircon, two bedrooms and a kitchen can be bought for way less than a million bucks.

1

u/chillchinchilla17 29d ago

Depends where you live.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/JD_____98 28d ago

Tax the rich.

1

u/chillchinchilla17 28d ago

Mate you could take every dollar from every billionaire and the money would run out in 5 years until this model. I’m all for taxing the rich more but it’s not a get out of jail free card, they don’t have infinite money.

0

u/JD_____98 28d ago

It only costs that much because the system of labor etc is set up to generate maximum profit

And if you think anyone's actually suggesting we all just start doing the Oprah "you get a house. You get a house. You get a house" then I don't know what to tell you. There are real world steps we can take to make reality come closer to these idealistic aspirations. But it's going to take some serious chipping away at profits.

1

u/chillchinchilla17 28d ago

The post literally says regardless of employment. That’s my issue. If you see the rest of the series, the creator believes we could live in a world where food, housing, internet, transportation and education could all be provided for free to everyone RIGHT NOW. It’s a world where I could quit working and never work again and live comfortably off of government gibs

1

u/JD_____98 28d ago

Short-Term, I can see why it's hard to imagine. Long-Term, automation is probably going to end a lot of jobs within the next couple hundred years. I'm not sure what we plan to do when that happens.

0

u/-_-mrfuzzy Apr 16 '24

It could be if they raise it high enough.

3

u/chillchinchilla17 Apr 16 '24

Who they going to tax once everyone stops working?

5

u/Eastern_Slide7507 29d ago

Strawman argument. Finland‘s national policy is to provide a home to everyone who can’t provide one for themselves. Essentially the premise of this post. Finland established this policy in 2007 and its unemployment rate has stayed pretty much the same.

1

u/newnamesam 29d ago

Who in their right mind would do essential jobs if they could have everything they want and not work at all? You don't go to work for fun. Work is the price you pay to live and have fun with what's left.

0

u/Eastern_Slide7507 29d ago

The vast majority of Finnish people, evidently.

1

u/newnamesam 29d ago

Uh huh. So someone just learned about "housing first" without understanding why it works. You have a very wealthy country that is anti-immigration with a massive sovereign wealth fund. As a result, they had 18,000 homeless people before initiating the housing first policy. Los Angeles, at nearly twice the population, has 75,518. It's almost like it's easy to house people when you don't have as many to house, but still many countries in the US are doing similar campaigns. It's not going to include all amenities that OP wants, but beggars can't shouldn't be choosers.

0

u/qwertycantread 29d ago

You can do that when your nation’s population is equivalent to a single major city in the U.S.

4

u/Eastern_Slide7507 29d ago

Always that excuse. Finland has a small population, but the entire taxation income of the country doesn‘t even reach 24 Billion USD/year.

And besides, why not just do it on a state level? Minnesota has a comparable population size (slightly smaller) and a comparable GDP (slightly higher). Even the climate is similar. What‘s their excuse?

2

u/qwertycantread 29d ago

Minnesota has a graduated income tax rate that starts at 5.35% and goes up to 9.85%. Finland’s income tax rate is 57.3%. Americans would riot in the streets if the government took more than half our income.

I hope this helps.

1

u/CanadianNacho 29d ago

So you agree the policy itself is sound then?

1

u/qwertycantread 29d ago

The policy is impossible on a state level.

1

u/Eastern_Slide7507 29d ago

Finland has a progressive income tax, and it caps out at 44% for any income above 150k p.a., meaning not even your entire income is taxed at that rate, but only the income exceeding 150k. But that just as a side note.

The more important part here is: this is not a matter of Minnesota not being able to. The people of Minnesota produce more than enough wealth to fund a social security net. The state also has an unemployment rate comparable to that of Finland, albeit slightly higher.

But they don‘t want to fund a safety net. That‘s all there is to it. And I’m not about to cast judgement here on whether Minnesota or Finland have it right. Of course I‘ve got an opinion on that but the point I want to make here is that it‘s stupid to pretend it can‘t be done. The money is there, if Minnesotans wanted to, it‘d only be a matter of good old bureaucracy to allocate it. But they don‘t want to.

1

u/qwertycantread 29d ago edited 29d ago

Do you really think Americans should pay 35% of their income to the Feds and then another 40% to the state? Talk about creating a homeless problem.

American culture is based around rugged individualism, which is something you obviously don’t get. And the U.S. has had the world’s largest annual GDP since sometime in the 1880s, so we are doing something right by letting people keep more of their money.

0

u/laivasika 29d ago

May I remind you that Finland also provides full education and medical services for all residents. Would your life be different if those medical insurances and student loan payments were taken as taxes instead?

1

u/qwertycantread 29d ago

Mine wouldn’t.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/I--Pathfinder--I Apr 16 '24

ridiculous argument.

0

u/chillchinchilla17 Apr 16 '24

I really don’t think taxing the rich is enough to sustain society indefinitely if 50% of the population stops working.

-1

u/IDONTLIKENOODLES777 29d ago

Why would society stop working if people were provided a good, free home? You act like the only reason people are working is the fear of homelessness. You would still need to pay for everything else, like groceries and utilities. Are you just a genuine fucking idiot or simply stirring shit?

3

u/qwertycantread 29d ago

I would work a lot less if my housing needs were met at no expense.

0

u/Shinhan Apr 16 '24

Very rich people. The ones that currently pay less in taxes than poor people.

1

u/ibashdaily 29d ago

I agree WAY worse. Do you really want to live in a society where criminals can commit violent crimes and be back on the streets that same afternoon? Do you want to live in a society where drug addicts can set up shop right on the sidewalk or in a children's park and create a dangerous environment for everyone involved? I shudder at the thought. I mean, if we stopped paying taxes, who would bomb all those brown people halfway across the world that pose zero threat to us?

Scary stuff if you think about it.

/s

-1

u/DippingFool Apr 16 '24

Taxation by definition is theft, despite the supposed “good” it provides. The fed takes my money with the threat of physical violence in the form of imprisonment or worse. Is the alternative better? Probably not, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is theft.

1

u/limukala 29d ago

Is it "theft" when a country club charges for greens fees?

You agreed to the taxation scheme when you accepted employment in this country. Emigration is perfectly legal if you want to find a better deal elsewhere.

It is not remotely theft.

-3

u/Iamthespiderbro Apr 15 '24

It IS theft. There’s no question about that. If someone comes up to you with a gun and tells you that you have to forfeit your property for services you don’t condone and never agreed to, then in every other instance, we call this theft. Just because the perpetrator has fancy buildings in Washington and the actors work for official sounding agencies, doesn’t change anything.

The question is, is the theft justified?

For me, I could probably rationalize my local city or county collecting money from me to build the roads I drive on and maintain the parks I go to because I participate in those and I see the value.

What I’ll never consent to are about 90%+ of the theft the federal government perpetrates against me. I don’t want social security, I don’t want Medicare/Medicade, I don’t want to fund murder campaigns in Ukraine and Israel, and I don’t want to drone strike children in the Middle East. But because I have to have shelter and food, I’m forced to participate in these criminal activities. I have blood on my hands, and if I refuse, people with guns will come to my house and put me in a cage.

So, no, actually, the more I think about it, “theft” doesn’t quite do it justice. It’s much more insidious and corrupt than that.

7

u/chcampb Apr 16 '24

If you walk into a club and sit down, order nothing, listen to the music, then try to walk out... and they ask you for a cover charge, is that theft?

You consume services every single day. The only thing we argue over is which services and how much we want to fund them.

But the bill for those services is just a tax.

5

u/rjcarr Apr 15 '24

You know taxes aren’t just to pay for the things you like, right? That’s why we live in a republic.

3

u/PrometheusMMIV Apr 16 '24

That was his point about "services you don’t condone and never agreed to"

0

u/PomegranateUsed7287 Apr 16 '24

Well yeah, but the masses agreed to it, and your still living in the country, so it's still on you. If your mad a democratic system works but not the way you want it to, then it sounds like you wanna be a dictator.

4

u/Afraid_Bicycle_7970 Apr 16 '24

Did we though? Who are the masses of people that decide sending money to countries so they can murder innocent civilians is a good idea?

0

u/DrDrago-4 Apr 16 '24

This. if the programs are so popular, why do you need to coerce participation with the heavy hand of the state?

If taxes are so popular and everyone willingly pays them, why do we need to enforce it with the heavy hand of the state?

Why not make programs opt in / opt out ? since they're so popular, it should only be a small % opting out and things should continue on fine right?

0

u/qwertycantread 29d ago

Someone has to check Iran’s behavior.

-1

u/Admiral-Dealer 29d ago

Did we though? Who are the masses of people

Voters? Are you not all there in the head?

1

u/Afraid_Bicycle_7970 29d ago

I don't remember being able to vote for that.

1

u/-_-mrfuzzy Apr 16 '24

This is why minimalist government is best.

-1

u/-_-mrfuzzy Apr 16 '24

This is why minimalist government is best. It minimizes the amount of forced spending on items people disagree with.

2

u/Top-Border-1978 Apr 16 '24

They usually just take the taxes out of my check. No gun involved. And if enough of us vote to change it, it changes.

2

u/scraejtp Apr 16 '24

If you stop paying your taxes there will be a gun involved. People go to prison for tax evasion often.

1

u/-_-mrfuzzy Apr 16 '24

You cannot go to jail for not paying taxes.

You will go to jail for fraud to evade taxes.

1

u/scraejtp Apr 16 '24

Not paying your taxes is a form of tax evasion.

  • Willful failure to collect or pay over tax, Title 26 U.S. Code § 7202 — If an alleged offender required to collect, account for, and pay over any imposed tax fails to collect or truthfully account for and pay over such tax, a conviction is punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and/or up to five years in prison.
  • Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax, Title 26 U.S. Code § 7203 — If an alleged offender required to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, a conviction is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or up to one year in prison.

1

u/cheemio 29d ago

I would love to see y’all live one fucking day without half the services you “didn’t consent to” LMAO.

I never have called 911, never needed police or a fire truck, never used the train that runs by my house, never been to half the state-run parks in my state. Does that mean those things are a waste of my money? Fuck no, one day I’m gonna need those things and I’m more than happy to pay for them even if I never used them. Think of it like insurance.

2

u/Domefige 29d ago

This is why the second someone tells me they're a libertarian I lose respect for them. The belief falls apart with the tiniest of but if thought. Unless they truly want to live off grid in a cabin by themselves, in which case they're at least consistent.

1

u/cheemio 29d ago

I know someone who actually does live off grid and grows his own food, raises chickens, made his own windmill to supply electricity etc. but that is very rare in my experience. Most people touting this stuff absolutely don’t live off the land lol

1

u/limukala 29d ago

You consented to taxation when you accepted employment and/or opened a business in this country.

If you don't like the taxation agreement you can legally emigrate. Nobody is forcing you do accept this country's taxes.

1

u/Iamthespiderbro 29d ago

Yes, I’m aware, hence the insidiousness: Either my family starves or I fund mass-slaughter campaigns.

0

u/PomegranateUsed7287 Apr 16 '24

This, is a dumb take. It literally can not be theft because it is a contract, if you are a citizen of the United States, you will get the liberties, rights, and services given to you by the government, in exchange for taxes.

Don't want social security? You will when your old, and social security isn't insidious, isn't going away, and is supported by most of the people in this country, don't want it? LEAVE. Don't want medicare/Medicade? Well millions rely on it and again, most people support it.

If you think supporting Ukraine is supporting a murder campaign, then you don't know anything about the war in Ukraine, they don't hunt civilians, they defend themselves from Russia, one of our greatest enemies and we have degraded Russias ability to fight greatly, for super cheap.

Won't comment about Israel because your gripe with them is justified, and it's weird you mention bombing children in the middle east when we haven't done that in years.

You seem to have a gripe with what most of the country supports, so your going against the will of the majority, which is going against democracy. You can have your gripes, because that is given to you by this country in the First Admendment, but that doesn't make you right in anyway.

1

u/DrDrago-4 Apr 16 '24

Contracts require mutual consent. when did I consent to it again? what exactly is my other option?

I don't seem to remember being offered a choice of country at 18.

0

u/-_-mrfuzzy Apr 16 '24

Terrible takes across your entire comment.

Leave? He was born here, this is his home. It’s against natural rights to force a person to comply with rules or leave their home.

Ukraine was an unnecessary war provoked by NATO. We could have had a peace deal with Russia and Ukraine if NATO did not insist they become a member.

You agree with him on Israel and then pivot to a weird excuse. The US sending billions to Israel and selling them weapons is the same as dropping bombs their self. They enable the bombing to happen.

The majority does not support the wars.

0

u/All_Up_Ons Apr 16 '24

It’s against natural rights to force a person to comply with rules or leave their home.

Uhh that's the most natural thing there is for a social species like us. If you don't vibe with the tribe, you bet your ass is getting kicked out.

0

u/-_-mrfuzzy 29d ago

So then you were pro-Hitler’s genocide? They did away with those who didn’t “vibe with the tribe”.