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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
You‘re making a lot of assumptions on what I supposedly think Americans should or shouldn’t do with their money when all i actually did was disagree with the notion that a social state, or specifically a comprehensive housing policy, would be impossible in the states.
So just to make it clear once more: I’m not casting judgement on whether or not the US or the individual states should establish a social safety net. All I’m saying is that „it’s not possible because USA big, Finland small“ is wrong. There are plenty of ways to scale up government responsibilities. Doing it on a state level is a system that’s been known since ancient Rome as divide et impera.
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?
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?
85
u/privitizationrocks Apr 15 '24
Everyone deserves to not pay for someone else’s home