3 ms·

> The most viscerally disturbing thing I've ever seen a human do, is wish that others be forced to expend useless, unnecessary effort to "earn" Seriously? Tha

> The most viscerally disturbing thing I've ever seen a human do, is wish that others be forced to expend useless, unnecessary effort to "earn" Seriously? That tops eating out of a dumpster (literally, like eating unwrapped, half-eaten discards)? Or defecating in a stairwell? > what we could just hand out It didn't work as charity. It isn't working as redistribution through taxation. What's your proposed solution?

closeparen 10y ago
>That tops eating out of a dumpster (literally, like eating unwrapped, half-eaten discards)? Or defecating in a stairwell? Neither of those things are wishing lifetimes of drudgery as a condition of survival onto your fellow human beings. > It isn't working as redistribution through taxation Which companies are paying taxes on their automated output comparable to what the payroll would cost?
- coolgeek 10y ago
  >>That tops eating out of a dumpster (literally, like eating unwrapped, half-eaten discards)? Or defecating in a stairwell? > Neither of those things are wishing lifetimes of drudgery as a condition of survival onto your fellow human beings. You're either not communicating your point effectively, or you don't seem to have any understanding of reality. Who, exactly, is "wishing lifetimes of drudgery as a condition of survival onto [their] fellow human beings"? And who, in their right mind, would willingly forego stable access to the necessities of life (food, a home...) because they find such stability intolerable compared to a lifetime of drudgery? >> It isn't working as redistribution through taxation > Which companies are paying taxes on their automated output comparable to what the payroll would cost? We seem to agree that redistribution through taxation categorically does not* solve the problem of providing people with the necessities of life. So what is the point in discussing a specific aspect of taxation? Instead, I'll ask again - what is your proposed solution, such that people's basic survival needs are accommodated, given that charity doesn't solve the problem either? * I'm not saying that it can't. I'm saying that it doesn't - primarily because the wealthy have bought 6 decades worth of across the board, increasing tax cuts (among other things) by buying government.

closeparen 10y ago

>That tops eating out of a dumpster (literally, like eating unwrapped, half-eaten discards)? Or defecating in a stairwell? Neither of those things are wishing lifetimes of drudgery as a condition of survival onto your fellow human beings. > It isn't working as redistribution through taxation Which companies are paying taxes on their automated output comparable to what the payroll would cost?

coolgeek 10y ago
>>That tops eating out of a dumpster (literally, like eating unwrapped, half-eaten discards)? Or defecating in a stairwell? > Neither of those things are wishing lifetimes of drudgery as a condition of survival onto your fellow human beings. You're either not communicating your point effectively, or you don't seem to have any understanding of reality. Who, exactly, is "wishing lifetimes of drudgery as a condition of survival onto [their] fellow human beings"? And who, in their right mind, would willingly forego stable access to the necessities of life (food, a home...) because they find such stability intolerable compared to a lifetime of drudgery? >> It isn't working as redistribution through taxation > Which companies are paying taxes on their automated output comparable to what the payroll would cost? We seem to agree that redistribution through taxation categorically does not* solve the problem of providing people with the necessities of life. So what is the point in discussing a specific aspect of taxation? Instead, I'll ask again - what is your proposed solution, such that people's basic survival needs are accommodated, given that charity doesn't solve the problem either? * I'm not saying that it can't. I'm saying that it doesn't - primarily because the wealthy have bought 6 decades worth of across the board, increasing tax cuts (among other things) by buying government.