Kamala Harris wants to give out free money

[mobulis]

@Samm

@mobulis

@Samm

@mobulis

@Samm

@mobulis

@Samm

@mobulis

@Samm

@CanadianJudo

Yes giving low income families tax cut is socialism.

That is not even remotely what I said. I said taking from the rich with the expressed purpose to give it to the poor is socialism. “From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs.” - Karl Marx

But you knew that, didn’t you.

No its not.

Karl Marx disagrees wth you.

No he doesn’t, in Marxism there is no state.

Karl Marx disagrees with you.

No he doesn’t, in Marxism there is no state.

So how do you interpret his statement which I quoted above? How does one take from those with ability and give to those without unless there is a State?

From wiki

According to Marxist theory, class conflict arises in capitalist societies due to contradictions between the material interests of the oppressed proletariat—a class of wage labourers employed by the bourgeoisie to produce goods and services—and the bourgeoisie—the ruling class that owns the means of production and extract their wealth through appropriation of the surplus product (profit) produced by the proletariat.

This class struggle that is commonly expressed as the revolt of a society’s productive forces against its relations of production, results in a period of short-term crises as the bourgeoisie struggle to manage the intensifying alienation of labor experienced by the proletariat, albeit with varying degrees of class consciousness. This crisis culminates in a proletarian revolution and eventually leads to the establishment of socialism—a socioeconomic system based on social ownership of the means of production, distribution based on one’s contribution and production organized directly for use. As the productive forces continued to advance, **Marx hypothesized that socialism would ultimately transform into a communist society; a classless, stateless, humane society based on common ownership and the underlying principle: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. **

Read that last paragraph again … “Marx hypothesized that socialism would ultimately transform into a communist society.”

In other words, he believed the State would eventually evolve into pure communism, not that he believed the State did not exist under socialism.

Marxism is a classless, stateless, humane society based on common ownership and the underlying principle: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”

[Samm]

@mobulis

Marxism is a classless, stateless , humane society based on common ownership and the underlying principle: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”

You didn’t answer the question … if there is no State, who takes from the wealthy and gives to the needy?

[mobulis]

@Samm

@mobulis

Marxism is a classless, stateless , humane society based on common ownership and the underlying principle: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”

You didn’t answer the question … if there is no State, who takes from the wealthy and gives to the needy?

They give it.

[Samm]

@mobulis

@Samm

@mobulis

Marxism is a classless, stateless , humane society based on common ownership and the underlying principle: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”

You didn’t answer the question … if there is no State, who takes from the wealthy and gives to the needy?

They give it.

Yeah, right.

[Samson_Corwell]

@conan

She want to give 500 a month to those that make under hundred grand per year and 250 per month to those that make 50 grand or less.

Now my question is why didn’t they do that before Obamacare? Wouldn’t that been cheaper and allow the people to shop for the best insurance that represent them?

Seems to me when they did Obamacare they didn’t thought it out too well because their were better and cheaper ways of helping American people.

American families making less than $100,000 a year could be eligible for a monthly tax credit of up to $500, or $6,000 a year, under new legislation announced Thursday by Democratic U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California.

Individuals making less than $50,000 would be eligible for up to $250 a month, $3,000 a year.

Read more here: https://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article220239985.html#storylink=cpy

Are we going to hear an explanation of the difference between a tax credit/break and a tax subsidy if you are asked? Or are you going to say there is no difference?

[Samson_Corwell]

@Samm

@mobulis

Marxism is a classless, stateless , humane society based on common ownership and the underlying principle: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”

You didn’t answer the question … if there is no State, who takes from the wealthy and gives to the needy?

A Marxist would likely say it would be organized by the community. A more sophisticated opponent would ask “If there is no state, then how can there be any wealthy people?”.

[Samm]

@Samson_Corwell

@Samm

@mobulis

Marxism is a classless, stateless , humane society based on common ownership and the underlying principle: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”

You didn’t answer the question … if there is no State, who takes from the wealthy and gives to the needy?

A Marxist would likely say it would be organized by the community. A more sophisticated opponent would ask “If there is no state, then how can there be any wealthy people?”.

And some would say that an organized community with a set of enforced rules (redistribution of wealth, for example) is a form of government, i.e. a State.

[mobulis]

@Samm

@mobulis

@Samm

@mobulis

Marxism is a classless, stateless , humane society based on common ownership and the underlying principle: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”

You didn’t answer the question … if there is no State, who takes from the wealthy and gives to the needy?

They give it.

Yeah, right.

You asked, I answered.

[mobulis]

@Samm

@Samson_Corwell

@Samm

@mobulis

Marxism is a classless, stateless , humane society based on common ownership and the underlying principle: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”

You didn’t answer the question … if there is no State, who takes from the wealthy and gives to the needy?

A Marxist would likely say it would be organized by the community. A more sophisticated opponent would ask “If there is no state, then how can there be any wealthy people?”.

And some would say that an organized community with a set of enforced rules (redistribution of wealth, for example) is a form of government, i.e. a State.

And they would be wrong.

[Kyshia]

In conclusion, there would be no state. Point to mobulis.

[Samm]

@Kyshia

In conclusion, there would be no state. Point to mobulis.

If there are rules and someone is in charge of enforcing them, there is a State. Point to Samm.

[Samson_Corwell]

@Samm

@Samson_Corwell

@Samm

@mobulis

Marxism is a classless, stateless , humane society based on common ownership and the underlying principle: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”

You didn’t answer the question … if there is no State, who takes from the wealthy and gives to the needy?

A Marxist would likely say it would be organized by the community. A more sophisticated opponent would ask “If there is no state, then how can there be any wealthy people?”.

And some would say that an organized community with a set of enforced rules (redistribution of wealth, for example) is a form of government, i.e. a State.

I would say that. Most other people won’t.

Redistribution of wealth doesn’t occur.

[zantax]

@mobulis

@Samm

@mobulis

Marxism is a classless, stateless , humane society based on common ownership and the underlying principle: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”

You didn’t answer the question … if there is no State, who takes from the wealthy and gives to the needy?

They give it.

Hilarious 10 more

[Samm]

@Samson_Corwell

I would say that. Most other people won’t.

Redistribution of wealth doesn’t occur.

You are right. Not without government to insist upon it that is.

[kingarthur65]

@zantax

When did we give tax money to corporations? I must have missed it. Are you talking about green energy?

Check the results of the most recent tax cuts.

The federal government has collected about 33% less revenue from corporations than the previous year. Meanwhile, individuals have paid in about 30% more than the previous year.

You might call that a redistribution of some sort.

[Kyshia]

@Samm

You are right. Not without government to insist upon it that is.

People donate all of the time, whether to organized charities or through their own choice.

That’s redistribution of wealth, and the state isn’t always involved to insist upon it.

[Samm]

@kingarthur65

@zantax

When did we give tax money to corporations? I must have missed it. Are you talking about green energy?

Check the results of the most recent tax cuts.

The federal government has collected about 33% less revenue from corporations than the previous year. Meanwhile, individuals have paid in about 30% more than the previous year.

You might call that a redistribution of some sort.

How can you say that? The vast majority of individuals won’t be reporting their tax obligation until next spring.

[Samm]

@Kyshia

@Samm

You are right. Not without government to insist upon it that is.

People donate all of the time, whether to organized charities or through their own choice.

That’s redistribution of wealth, and the state isn’t always involved to insist upon it.

Other than perhaps Mother Theresa, no individual shares their wealth with the poor to the extent of achieving parity with them, not even the most generous of us. And most do it for the tax exemption, not because they are sympathetic to the plight of the poor and want to share their good fortune. Eliminate the charitable donation tax exemption (government encouragement) and most charities would fold.

[Kyshia]

I’m not talking about parity. I’m talking about redistribution of wealth, which is what you were talking about.

Redistribution of wealth happens all of the time, and the state doesn’t need to exist for that redistribution of wealth to occur.

[zantax]

@kingarthur65

@zantax

When did we give tax money to corporations? I must have missed it. Are you talking about green energy?

Check the results of the most recent tax cuts.

The federal government has collected about 33% less revenue from corporations than the previous year. Meanwhile, individuals have paid in about 30% more than the previous year.

You might call that a redistribution of some sort.

Again, being allowed to keep more of what you earn is not the government giving you money and I am going to need to see some actual proof that individuals are paying thirty percent more.