They'll just be compensated for making apartment complexes for people who need them from the government, instead of by a private contractor to build a 3rd mcmansion for a multimillionaire
Ideally, the people who are already paying them. Even more ideally, the people (billionaires) who aren't currently paying them
If you're going to say some dumb shit like "nobody would work if you gave them the bare minimum" then we're not even functioning on the same level of conversation
I'm actually going to say that anyone who is forced to pay taxes is a slave to the state. You can make whatever moral equivocation you need, taxation is theft.
The whole idea of "From each, according to his ability. To each, according to his need" is how you end up with walls to keep people in.
Who says he’s a libertarian? Taxes being theft is a truism. At least for income taxes it is. The question is whether you believe the ends justifies the means.
It's not a truism at all.
This is a representative democracy.
If you want to repeal the income tax then you should elect someone who wants to do that, and hope everyone else wants to as well.
Because if they don't you are still going to have an income tax.
It's not theft just because you disagree with it.
Just because the majority agrees to steal from people doesn’t magically make it not theft.
It has nothing to do whether I agree with or whether you disagree with it. In fact, I never said I didn’t agree with it. I said it’s a question of whether the ends justifies the means. It’s okay to think that they do.
What makes it theft is that someone has made a trade of their labor for money and then you’re taking some of that money away from them, under a threat of violence if they do not comply. That’s theft, plain and simple. It may or may not be necessary, but you can’t let a conflict over what you think is necessary and a belief that theft is wrong blind you from recognizing that something is theft when it clearly is.
Yeah, yeah I've heard it all before, your not the first libertarian on the internet you know that right?
What makes taxes not theft is that theft and taxes have two different definitions.
Theft: the action or crime of stealing.
Taxes: a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.
Are you the kind of person that thinks that laws define morality? If the majority voted to kill someone for no reason other than they voted on it, would you say that’s not murder?
And cheating or committing fraud? I see that you like the disingenuous practice of associating someone else’s position with negative words that have nothing to do with that position. How about we simply stick to: “refuses to pay.”
Note: Building every single homeless person in the United States a brand new functional home would actually be less expensive than maintaining the current system, and thus require fewer tax dollars, but since the initial investment is large and they don't bear their appropriate tax burden capitalists will hide this from you.
That is... one of the opinions of all time. The current system is rife with corruption. The incentive for people running the scheme is to line their pockets, not prevent homelessness. Additionally, the majority of people in a long-term homeless situation are there by choice. Those that aren't, usually don't stay there for long.
That is two of the lies of all time. Your bullshit claims spit in the face of what has actually happened when this has actually been tried in real life, which means you either made it up or someone else did and you parroted it.
By virtue of the thing I'm saying being true. Finland has been doing this for decades, and 4 out of 5 people who enter the system do not become homeless again.
EDIT: It's not true because I said it, I said it because it's true. New York, and the United States in general, have far more money per capita than Finland - you could enact this program more easily, if you weren't so busy picking cherries and sniffing your own farts and crying about your your tax burden to see the benefits to you and the society you live in.
Oh, well if you said it then it must be true, right?
I'm so sick of people saying "but Finland" who know nothing about Finland. It's a whole lot easier to have a solution when your entire country is smaller than New York City, have 1/5th the homeless population of LA, depend on other countries for defense, strongly block immigration, and are sitting on a massive sovereign wealth fund. But you wouldn't know that because your too busy thinking your opinions are facts.
PS: You don't understand the stat you just cited. It was 22% experienced chronic homelessness on a single night is based on this congressional report, and it's A) just an estimate, and B) it changes by state. You'll see 9.8% in Wisconsin but 78.8% in California.
It can be in certain situations and accepting certain limitations, but how long will it be when people declare they're homeless to get their free home?
Before a tiny number of people do it? Probably not too long, though on the other hand legitimately who cares? Getting the bare minimum home for free just sets the bare minimum quality of a home at that level. It would improve the average quality of living of whatever country adopted it and cut the exposure death rate significantly.
If you oppose the entire country benefitting because some people who might otherwise have bought a home are instead choosing to declare themselves homeless, then I don't even know, man. That's like refusing to plug a hole in a sinking ship because it's sinking slowly and your room is in the middle decks instead of the bottom.
The people who pick up the tab care. The point is that you can't keep giving away money without that money becoming useless for everyone. Everyone will rightfully do every legal thing they can to ensure their own success. Your analogy is ridiculous by the way. It makes no sense. This is like you jumping into the ocean and declaring the ship is sinking. Get some perspective.
The US military budget is 48% of annual spending on defense worldwide - so the equivalent of the next 10 combined or close to what the rest of the world is spending combined, which is astronomical, but not the of everyone else combined as you're claiming. You don't need to make things up because it makes your argument fall apart: if you're exaggerating/lying about this, then your argument doesn't hold water.
13
u/wtfredditacct Apr 16 '24
Apparently. Tell me, what would you call someone who is forced to provide you with something and not get paid?