Have you ever been substantively wrong online?

[giblets]

Yes, they live on the bare minimum needed to survive and donate everything else to charity. That means that even with tax deductions for charity donations, taxes still manage to slightly reduce the amount they donate to charity.

[Ben Kenobi]

You honestly believe this, Ben? Do you think all rich people are really Jesus McBuddha but these oppressive taxes prevent them from giving to charity?

I never said I believed rich people were saintly and that poor people were less saintly then the rich.

I do believe that it is rational to behave as Scrooge did, that if one is paying taxes, that one has performed their duty to society through paying taxes. Imran made that argument, so did Scrooge. Hence the reference.

My question to you Albert, is if you are paying taxes, why should someone engage in Charity at all?

[Al B. Sure!]

I do believe that it is rational to behave as Scrooge did, that if one is paying taxes, that one has performed their duty to society through paying taxes. Imran made that argument, so did Scrooge. Hence the reference.

My question to you Albert, is if you are paying taxes, why should someone engage in Charity at all?

Because, as old Imran would probably say, the government probably isn't efficient in its 'charity', probably doesn't give enough, and the government doesn't necessarily 'give' to those that you are particularly interested in saving.

What you're attributing to Scrooge is NOT rational. It's a rationalization for being a scrooge.

Think about this logically. If 30% of Scrooge's income went to the poor through taxation and he felt that was enough, what the hell makes you think he would donate more than 30% of his income in the absence of taxes? Clearly, Scrooge would have donated a lot less than 30% because if he was willing to give more, he would have given more in addition to paying the taxes.

You really make no sense, Ben. Once again, your brain is broken. I guess it shouldn't be surprising that someone who cites Scrooge to make an argument against taxation would have a broken brain.

Not saying you're stupid but the way you connect things in your head and go from point a to point b is definitely abnormal. I'm not even trying to be funny or insulting (and maybe some people here would say the same thing about me)... I'm being real. You've demonstrated too many times that your sense of deduction is completely wrong.

[giblets]

The question is, why does anyone attempt to have a conversation with someone who has a deformed brain?

[Al B. Sure!]

The question is, why does anyone attempt to have a conversation with someone who has a deformed brain?

I'm an outspoken person who cares too much, I guess?

[loinburger]

I like to hear myself talk post, I guess?

.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because, as old Imran would probably say, the government probably isn't efficient in its 'charity'

If you read my post to Imran, Imran talked about how the government is more efficient in it's charity.

probably doesn't give enough, and the government doesn't necessarily 'give' to those that you are particularly interested in saving

You're sounding more and more like me all the time Albert. Why is it rational to want to save anyone? Shouldn't you look out for number 1?

If 30% of Scrooge's income went to the poor through taxation and he felt that was enough, what the hell makes you think he would donate more than 30% of his income in the absence of taxes?

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that if he wanted to donate 30 percent of his income towards charitable endeavours, and if taxes were 30 percent of his income, then he would feel no desire to donate more than that amount to the poor, since his charity has been devoured by taxes.

Clearly, Scrooge would have donated a lot less than 30% because if he was willing to give more, he would have given more in addition to paying the taxes.

That's bad logic. How can you differ between Scrooge choosing not to give more and his taxes donating what he otherwise would have given to charity? You can conclude that he might of given *less*, and you can conclude that he would not have given more, but you don't have enough information to determine how much he would have given in the absence of taxation.

Again, there's nothing logical about the decision to give to charity more than what you pay in taxes. Ergo, Scrooge's argument that his charitability is taken up in taxes.

Not saying you're stupid but the way you connect things in your head and go from point a to point b is definitely abnormal

No insult taken. I know I see things differently. I see things differently now than I used to see things. I agree with you that my argument is irrational, but that doesn't make it wrong.

[Lorizael]

I agree with you that my argument is irrational, but that doesn't make it wrong.

It's true. He could accidentally be correct.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What would Jesus say about robbing others to fund your good intentions? If I were to take 40 from you and give 20 dollars to the homeless guy down the street is that ok? Is that better than taking 5 bucks from my own pocket and giving it to homeless guy?

You live in a democracy, which is voluntary association (leave if you want). Kind of like the community of believers in Acts. It's not robbing when there is an agreement by the members of that organization on those rules.

Besides, it is ridiculous to insinuate that basic needs would be met through charity if all taxes were abolished. Didn't work before the society safety net. Hence why the safety net exists. And I think Jesus would be happy that society has decided to take care of its people in such fashion (and probably should do more).

[C0ckney]

irman is dead right.

the whole taxes are theft argument is ridiculous. we live in a democratic society and we, as a society have decided to have a social safety net to look after less fortunate people. if you (ben) are unhappy with that, you have two choices. you can work through democratic means to change things, or you can leave.

[Al B. Sure!]

Taxes are part of the social contract.

[Ben Kenobi]

You live in a democracy, which is voluntary association (leave if you want). Kind of like the community of believers in Acts. It's not robbing when there is an agreement by the members of that organization on those rules.

I'm not arguing against taxation in general, just against income taxation. I'm aware that the state has constitutional obligations that require funding. I don't believe that income taxation is necessary to fulfill those obligations, and I also don't believe that the social security net is the same.

Besides, it is ridiculous to insinuate that basic needs would be met through charity if all taxes were abolished.

And has poverty been eliminated now? Are things better now for society then they were in the 19th century? So far they are, but that has come with the massive devaluation of the dollar. How long can things continue? The government is bankrupt. What happens when the checks stop coming?

[Ben Kenobi]

if you (ben) are unhappy with that, you have two choices. you can work through democratic means to change things, or you can leave.

I left to a jurisdiction that supports my beliefs. So I don't really see why income taxes are necessary at all.

[C0ckney]

dude my post was about a social safety net, you know, the thing you have been arguing against.

besides you still pay income taxes in texas, and there is still a social safety net there, although less so than in canada.

[loinburger]

And has poverty been eliminated now? Are things better now for society then they were in the 19th century? So far they are, but that has come with the massive devaluation of the dollar. How long can things continue? The government is bankrupt. What happens when the checks stop coming?

So things are better now but might get worse, therefore we should make things worse before things get worse? Awesome.