Are billionaires ripping us off, and could socialism actually be better?

[msc545]

Updates

1 mo

Of course, socialism would be better, but that's never going to happen because the billionaires will not allow it. They run our society; face it.

[SolitarySolace]

No, the existence of billionaires does not mean they are automatically “ripping us off.” Wealth is often created by building companies, investing capital, developing products, creating jobs, and persuading people to buy something voluntarily. Anyone who commits fraud, exploits workers illegally, abuses monopoly power, or evades taxes should be held accountable—but guilt should be based on conduct, not simply on net worth.

And hell no, socialism is not “actually better.” Giving government or collective institutions greater control over property, businesses, investment, prices, wages, and production does not eliminate greed or concentrated power—it transfers more of that power to politicians and bureaucrats. Socialism weakens private ownership, competition, consumer choice, entrepreneurship, and the incentives that produce innovation and prosperity.

Capitalism is imperfect and requires laws against corruption, fraud, coercion, and anti-competitive behavior. But the answer to its flaws is reform and enforcement—not replacing economic freedom with a system that concentrates even more power in government hands.

[msc545]

Capitalism in the US has laws against corruption, fraud, coercion, and anti-competitive behavior. These laws are often selectively enforced and frequently not enforced at all.

[SolitarySolace]

@msc545 Then the solution is to enforce those laws consistently, close loopholes, prosecute corruption, break up illegal monopolistic conduct, and hold powerful people accountable as individuals regardless of wealth or political connections.

Selective enforcement is a failure of government and institutions—not proof that socialism would work better. Giving those same politicians and bureaucracies even more control over property, businesses, wages, prices, and production would not eliminate corruption. It would increase the amount of power available to be abused.

Capitalism should be reformed where necessary and its laws enforced equally. Replacing it with socialism because government sometimes fails to enforce existing laws would reward the institution that failed by giving it even more authority.

[msc545]

The problem with your suggestion is that when things get to the point economically, as they have in this country through capitalism, just a relatively few people and corporations control a large percentage of the available wealth. These people in those corporations then buy influence and essentially purchase their own regulators. For instance, the President essentially owns four Supreme Court Justices. He will do whatever he wishes and always decide things in his favor because of the leverage he has on you, on them, and the amount of wealth he's bestowed on them in one way or another. What this means is that regulators and regulatory agencies that have been purchased by the industries they are supposed to regulate will no longer be able to regulate those industries independently. Entire regulatory agencies, such as the Department of Justice in the United States, have been captured in this way, and there is literally nobody to enforce any regulations anymore. Laws that cannot be enforced are not laws. At best, they are suggestions that most people are safe in ignoring. So wealth continues to accumulate in the hands of the wealthy and the large corporations. People become poor, and there is nothing to be done about any of this short of violence. Historically, in other countries and to some extent in the United States, this situation ends in violence sooner or later. This all begins with the tendency of unregulated capitalism to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few people and a few large corporations.

[SolitarySolace]

@msc545 Your claim that President Trump “owns” four Supreme Court justices who will always decide in his favor is plainly false. A president nominates justices, but once confirmed they hold lifetime appointments and do not work for him.

The most recent example is the Supreme Court’s birthright-citizenship decision. The Court ruled against President Trump’s executive order and held that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.

That does not mean regulatory capture or improper influence can never exist, but accusations that the president literally owns justices and controls every ruling require evidence. A major ruling directly against one of his signature policies disproves your absolute claim.

It also does not answer my larger point: if you believe government institutions have already been completely captured and cannot enforce laws honestly, why would giving those same institutions vastly more economic control through socialism solve the problem rather than magnify it?

[msc545]

Those four supreme Court justices do not always decide in his favor cuz that would make the arrangement that he has with him too obvious. They aren't that stupid. They decide often enough with him in important cases that his ownership of them has become quite obvious. From time to time they are obviously going to not completely agree with him and that continues to lend credibility to the notion that they are independent. They aren't.

I don't think that if somehow socialism were to become the dominant economic system country that anyone would entertain the idea of say allowing the present justice department officials to continue in their present roles given their behavior in the last 2 years.

[SolitarySolace]

@msc545 There is another major problem with your hypothetical. If socialism became the dominant system in the United States, the most likely political vehicle for implementing it would be the Democratic Socialists of America—the country’s largest organized socialist group. Under the DSA’s published agenda, the present Supreme Court would not simply receive new officials; the organization has advocated abolishing the Court altogether, along with other foundational institutions.

So your proposed solution to allegedly compromised institutions would empower the socialist movement most capable of implementing that system—one that seeks to eliminate a major constitutional check on government power. That would not protect judicial independence or reduce political control. It would dismantle the institution and concentrate even more authority in the political system replacing it.

You already said you would not support the DSA because its “Feminism for All” agenda cannot be separated from the rest of its platform. The same principle applies here: socialism would not arrive as an isolated economic policy while leaving the DSA’s broader constitutional agenda behind. You cannot empower the movement to implement the economics while assuming it will ignore its plans for the judiciary and constitutional system.

[msc545]

It would not be DSA or nothing but it's a meaningless argument. Considering that none of it is going to happen. We are going to keep right on being as corrupt as hell

[SolitarySolace]

I hope you’re right that none of the DSA’s agenda will happen. Have a nice day

[msc545]

You too. Nice discussion

[msc545]

Capitalism just concentrates more power in the hands of individuals, which is arguably much worse, since these individuals go on to control the government

[Twodogs0525]

I get it but you're arguing against capitalism, right? Finland is a capitalist country! All of the EU is capitalist. The question isn't whether capitalism actually benefits a society, it's whether you wanna abandon it and go fully socialist!

[msc545]

@Twodogs0525 I think the careful analysis of the modern economic system suggests that a combination of capitalism and socialism is probably the optimal economic system in existence at this point. This is not to say that there are potentially other ones, but I'm not an economist, and there may be something else that might work better. That combination of capitalism and socialism seems like a good one right now

[msc545]

@Twodogs0525 Finland has a mixed economy. The mixture is one of capitalism and socialism. They also control their capitalism very closely because they are smart enough to know that when you don't, it gets out of hand real quick.

[Twodogs0525]

You are correct, they have about the same amount of a mixed economy as the US does but they are not a socialist country.

[goaded]

Yes, billionaires are ripping everybody off, and democratic socialism is far better.

The democracy part is essential.

[Twodogs0525]

What part of "democracy" is essential?

[msc545]

Free and Fair elections and and all of the civil rights enumerated in the Constitution. Even the ones you don't like.

[goaded]

@Twodogs0525 The part where you can get rid of the people lording it over you without bloodshed.

[Twodogs0525]

@goaded Hasn't capitalism been been proven to be the most effective way to lift people out of poverty? I mean, you're gonna have economical classes in any form of government but the US "poor" isn't quite as bad or as wide spread as the EU poor, correct? I know you basically run on a "free economy" but you also tax the HELL out of the citizens.

[msc545]

@Twodogs0525 Yes. When I look at the literally thousands of homeless people on the streets of my city, which is a bastion of capitalism, I can tell how effective capitalism has been in "lifting people out of poverty."

[Twodogs0525]

Have you talked to them? Have you asked them if they wanna be homeless? You claim to be an expert on the subject, right? If that's the life they choose, that has absolutely nothing to do with "capitalism" failure.

[msc545]

@Twodogs0525 the part where it says you're not allowed to do things to scam people or steal from them.

[msc545]

Actually, the parts where it also says that we actually enforced all the laws as written and we don't give some people a pass because they have a lot of money

[Twodogs0525]

@msc545 See my comments above. Socialism isn't gonna magically take homeless off the street. It will just make the poor poorer and turn our country into the absolute shit show that's happening in the EU.

[goaded]

@Twodogs0525 "In 2007 Finland decided to switch to a radical new approach to homelessness called ‘housing first’, in which homeless people are simply offered their own apartment, with no expectations of them except paying the rent (usually covered by their benefits); alongside this they are given whatever support they need to remain housed, for as long as they need it. Proponents of 'housing first' argue that it is much easier for homeless people to sort out issues such as addiction or poor mental health when they have a secure home.

The results so far seem to bear this out: around 90% of people offered an apartment remain housed, a much higher rate than under the previous system. However, critics argue that the approach could be much harder to implement in countries without Finland’s extensive social welfare system or good stock of affordable housing." https://www.bbc.com/audio/play/p0h6fdww
www.bbc.com/.../645f92d8-25fc-4c55-8cfb-0fb8dcfe19c2
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-46891392

This one's in Canada: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36092852

[Twodogs0525]

@goaded Maybe read up on the current situation in Finland. Homelessness has increased by 20 percent from 2024-2025, mainly because the welfare state can't sustain itself.

[msc545]

@Twodogs0525 do we have a link or reference for this?

[Twodogs0525]

www.redcross.fi/.../

[msc545]

@Twodogs0525 I don't know enough about what else is going on in Finland to attribute this to socialism, and I don't think you do either.

[Twodogs0525]

Fair enough. I wouldn't say it's necessarily due to "socialism" but definitely a precursor of what follows it. Oddly enough, Finland got the idea from NYC! NYC revamped the policy back to "treatment first."
The one thing missing from Finland's policy, is how much it decreased "drug dependency" and "mental illness." With that data missing, it leads me to believe they gave drug addicts a free place to do their drugs. Kind of what cities throughout the US have proposed.

[msc545]

@Twodogs0525 I don't think your suppositions or assumptions are necessarily wrong, but I also don't think that you have enough data to decide that they are accurate. I don't have enough data to decide that they are inaccurate either.

[msc545]

@Twodogs0525 it will not magically take people off the streets. It will take a long time to repair the damage that has been done by capitalism, but what it will work toward is income equality and universal health care. Those two things alone would take most people off the streets. At this point in time, one man literally has more wealth than 95% of the people in this country. Was that reasonable or fair or good economic policy that allowed that?

[goaded]

@Twodogs0525 https://www.varke.fi/fi/document/asunnottomat-2024 - the report linked from www.redcross.fi/.../ (your link) Seems to say, on page one, there's been a slight uptick in homelessness, similar to 2012's (the last time that happened), and the current number is half 2008's.

[Twodogs0525]

I notice your graph stops at year, 2024. Homelessness increased by 20% between 2024 and 2025, as I said.

[Twodogs0525]

ysaatio.fi/.../

[goaded]

@Twodogs0525 Still not back to where it was in 2008, is it? Nowhere near, in fact.

“Homelessness has not increased in consecutive years since 2009. At that time, the numbers were turned downward through a comprehensive homelessness programme that created the Housing First model. We now need similar determination,” says Teija Ojankoski, CEO of Y-Säätiö.

[Twodogs0525]

@goaded Homelessness grew by 11 percent from 2023=2024 and doubled from 2024-2025. That's a 33 percent increase over two years! That's alarming! Your only comeback is, "still not back to where it was?"

[goaded]

@Twodogs0525 That's not doubling, and I could also compare their situation to other countries.

[Twodogs0525]

The homeless rate went up 11 percentage from 2023-2024, then increased roughly 20 percent from 2024-2025. That's doubling from the previous year. If you wanna dismiss these numbers as no big deal, that's fine but Finland certainly sees it as a problem.

[goaded]

@Twodogs0525 It's a bit misleading to say doubling the rate is doubling the homelessness, though.

Yes, it's a problem for them, but it's one they've already got a proven (partial) solution for.

The problem seems to be recent austerity: "Cuts to housing allowance and social assistance in a societal situation where many individuals and families are already financially stretched create situations where people are unable to hold on to their homes".

[msc545]

@Twodogs0525 I don't have any data later than 2024.

[Twodogs0525]

@goaded I agree lol I could have worded it better, that's why I left a clearer explanation. It was a "record breaking" increase.

[Effably]

Everyone has some socialism. If you pay taxes that goes into healthcare, defense, infrastructure or anything else? Congrats. You are part of socialism. You are a socialist. No society functions without it, yet at least. So literallt every country on earth is socialist.

Capitalism at its core is just the ability to own capital and have that right protected by, you guessed it, socialism. Capitalism by definition demands Socialism to exist to protect it.

There is nothing inherently evil in it but capitalism simply does not work without constant resets. That means things like inheritance is preventing capitalism from functioning. But abolish family and friendship and Capitalism could work.

If we are less idealistic and look at the practical part of it, economy is rather simple in capitalism. Spending money is good for everyone. Sitting on money is bad for everyone but you.
So if a billionaire is sitting on money without actively using it they are effectively just having the same impact as half a million people on welfare, US numbers. Per billion and person.
That said if they spend every dollar actively, owning stocks does not cover this, they do no real harm.

As of yet no billionaire does that so they are effectively just super welfare receivers with extra steps. Most people would probably consider that being ripped off if they looked into the math.

[Anonymous]

Yes and no.

There's NOTHING wrong with capitalism. Unchecked capitalism is a problem. Not everything should be for profit. Healthcare and Education in my estimation should not be for profit. Or at least not unregulated (and i don't mean the FDA) i simply mean the government has role to play. I'm generally all for the free market and agree with laissez-faire as much as the next guy. Until the free market has shown it's inability or unwillingness to regulate itself. And in many ways the healthcare system has proven that. However since it makes up such a large part of the economy now (18%), i know there is no political from are lawmakers to fix it. And in my opinion that is the only real role of the government as it pertains to the economy. As it says in the Constitution "to promote the general welfare". It doesn't say, "give the people welfare".

So to answer your question, no Capitalism is fine. But we've never lived in a completely capitalistic society. Some tinges of of our society has always had socialistic elements.

[msc545]

Capitalism taken alone may not actually be the problem, I agree. However, as you rightfully point out, unregulated capitalism is a terrible problem, and the United States is a prime example of that problem. We don't even have anti-trust laws anymore that get enforced.

[jshm2]

Billionaires are billionaires because they rip off and steal. But that's a separate matter from government

Socialism is a complex matter as it doesn't exist. There are varying forms of policies and institutions that can be socialist in action. But you'll never find absolute socialism.

For example your public roads and fire brigade are the result of socialist polices. Doesn't matter how "capitalist" you think a country might be, it must have a free fire brigade, and maintained public roads.

[slatyb]

Socialism? Never been tried. Social democracies like the Scandinavian countries are enjoying a higher quality of life than the capitalist United States. We frequently see people falsely claiming that the wealth of the billionaires could solve poverty or other social problems. This is not possible. The total wealth of the tech billionaires is about equal to the US war budget. We can either confiscate half their wealth, which can only be done once, or we could cut the war budget in half yielding the same amount every year in perpetuity.

[lilBigPotato]

Capitalism is ok to a certain degree, just as much as socialism is. But if you go all in on either, you'll have to make some sacrifice. As usual, a healthy mix is probably the best.

People need to realise that e. g. affordable education and healthcare are things everyone profits from, not just the poor. Many countries have figured that out and those who haven't will follow sooner or later.

[Effably]

Without being political about this free healthcare and education is proven to be among the best investments a country can make and pays for itself and then more on top.

This is why pretty much every country has and is adopting it. Would you like free healthcare and also 10% more money to spend in your budget? The question is that simple. Remove lobbying and the answer is equally simple.

So regardless of what mix is ideal making things that pay for themselves, by being free, free just makes sense.

[darkcloud1945]

@Effably That's what they said when they gave us that wonderful medical coverage for all Obamacare. A 100% increase in premium and a 60% reduction in services. Every time it comes up for funding, it costs a lot more than before, and fewer services are provided. When has anything improved when the government runs it?

[Effably]

Even the worst run examples you can find in the world cuts the costs in half compared to USA. Better run ones cut it in four. This is despite free access more than doubling visits since sick people actually go to the hospital.

So, pretty much every single time if we live in reality.

Not going to argue with you om someone else's post over something that has been proven 75 times over in 75 different countries and more every year. If you care to see the results there are 75++ case studies to look at. Every single one reduces costs and better health boosts productivity beyond the cost itself.

If you genuinely care about if it is good or not, it is very easy to confirm.

[darkcloud1945]

@Effably, just like Canada, their citizens come to the lower 48 for operations and services that they have to wait a year or more for in Canada, a great system that is government-run healthcare

[lilBigPotato]

@darkcloud1945 you're comparing apples with oranges. Obamacare isn't a healthcare system, it's just some regulation of the broken insurance market. A plaster at best.

In a decent universal healthcare system, there are no insurance premiums, deductibles or limitations in services. Everyone pays a small percentage of their salary (with a cap) and that's it. Nothing to worry about anymore. It doesn't matter if you just need a GP, specialist, surgery, ambulance, helicopter, hospitalisation... They are generally included. There is no network of doctors or hospitals you're limited to.
In my case here in Spain I pay 6% and that's it, nothing to worry about anymore. If I'm sick , I take sick leave, if I had an accident, I take an ambulance without worrying it will cripple me financially.

There are options for private insurance that builds on top of existing healthcare that gives you slightly lower waiting times for non critical appointments, single room in hospital and stuff like that and those are around 60€ per month, so still nothing crazy. And just to be clear, those 6% are social contributions, so not just healthcare, it also includes your pension or covers your paid sick leave etc.

I'm not saying everything is perfect. You can always find something to complain about. But it works, that's why so many countries have it.
You can do whatever you want in the US, it's your problem. But it's a fact that the US spends by far the most amount per person on healthcare, and in return has one of the lowest average life expectations compared to other Western countries.

If you have a specific idea on how to give almost 100% of the population affordable healthcare without involving the government, I'm curious.

[msc545]

@darkcloud1945, what do you think about health coverage now that Trump has supposedly improved it? Reaching back and complaining about Obama, which I think you wouldn't be doing if you were not a democrat. You might want to look at the present and perhaps find it in your heart to complain about Trump.

[msc545]

@darkcloud1945 I want to also consider how many US citizens go to Canada and Mexico for operations and services that they would have to mortgage their house to get otherwise.

[IHaveRespawned]

I believe in a balance, or a "mixed economy". I do not believe certain things should be privatized, such as our public safety (also including our fire-rescue and primary EMS services). But I do also believe in a free, private-sector too. There are just too many monopolies that need to be broken down and too many greedy billionaires. They have ruined our nation.

[msc545]

In large part, the failure to enforce anti-trust laws that are already on the books has also ruined our nation.

[Anonymous]

A trillion dollars for elon musk to spend on nothing.

Most people think the difference between Trillions, billions, and millions is a M, B, and a T.

They don't understand money so they think it's okay for one guy to have enough money to buy elections in the United Kingdom, USA, and wherever else wants as a foreigner.

He destroys people's lives, so he can tweet boring edgy jokes all day.

[andreasderjuengere]

In capitalism humans exploit other humans.

In socialism it's the other way round :)

[darkcloud1945]

And their next step from socialism is to communism, their ultimate goal of subjugation

[andreasderjuengere]

@darkcloud1945 Similar to the next step of capitalism. Which is American capitalism.

[msc545]

@darkcloud1945 you are mistaking communism as a governmental system, which it is not. It is actually an economic system. If there is a fascist government that goes along with it, which is not uncommon, then that's a whole different problem.

[Levin]

We have socialism in the UK.

I see my colleagues get significantly less in pay, than new arrivals do in benefits. I've seen £3700 per month in Universal Credit claims for ESOL students.

[msc545]

You also have corruption in the UK.

[Levin]

That's not corruption. That's a policy. And it's wrong. And it's not just a little wrong, it's grotesquely wrong.

[msc545]

Why is it wrong? We have that here, except the wealthy people get the benefits and the poor people don't get shit.

[Levin]

You're asking me why someone earning 1800 per month, after tax, who has worked all their lives, and still can't afford fuck all, can't afford a house etc: Gets less than someone who arrived from Pakistan 6 months ago, and does not work, but gets twice as much in benefits, is wrong?

Also, you're comparing apples and oranges. In the UK we have far too much socialism. In the US, there appears to be little safety net at all. Both extremes are undesirable.

[msc545]

There is basically no safety nut in the US and we live in a place where the economic system is predatory capitalism. Put those two together and you get a good idea of what it feels like to be here.

[Levin]

Indeed. And I'm glad I don't have your healthcare.

[msc545]

I have decent healthcare but I pay for it. A lot.

[Levin]

How much?

[msc545]

I think that's private, but I will tell you that it's more than I want to pay.

[Levin]

Is it private? I'm interested because I have no reference point as a Brit. But fuck the American system anyway

[msc545]

Sorry, it is indeed private, and I don't discuss my finances in public.

[goaded]

"... someone who arrived from Pakistan 6 months ago, and does not work,,,"
Isn't it illegal for them to work?

[Levin]

@goaded That would depend on what residency they came on, surely. If it's a spouse visa (or maybe we should call it a cousin shagging visa), according to google they can work.

[Levin]

I presume you're also aware, according to the 2021 census 48% of Muslims do not work.

[msc545]

I've not seen that.

[Levin]

7. Religion by employment status
People who identified as "Muslim" or reported "Other religion" had the lowest percentages in employment

People identified as "Muslim" had the lowest percentage of people aged 16 to 64 years in employment, 51.4%, compared with 70.9% of the overall population. The next lowest percentage, 64.2%, was among people who reported "Other religion".

www.ons.gov.uk/.../census2021

[msc545]

Do you think one of those things caused the other thing to happen? So what is the relationship between the two things that caused that?

[Levin]

Are you asking me why being Muslim means you'd be less inclined to work?

[goaded]

I expect he's saying that a lot of Muslims aren't allowed to work by law (and maybe they're less likely to both be working in a family than other groups).

Christian + No Religion = at least 75% of the population.

And it seems I was right about the second reason: "The percentage of people looking after home or family was almost three times higher for people who identified as "Muslim" than the overall population".

www.ons.gov.uk/.../fallback.png

[Levin]

@goaded I'm not sure what point you're making. It's obviously part of their 'patriarchal' culture for the woman not to work. Which is fine, so long as they're not being subsidised, or indeed cucking, by the host culture.

[goaded]

My point is, like the title of Ben Goldacre's book: I Think You’ll Find It’s a Bit More Complicated Than That

Where "that" is whatever simplistic claim that comes out about how unfair the system is to straight white Christian men (pick any two or three).

Reading on... About 12% of Muslims are students (so probably not working). In total, about a third are either students, looking after family or sick/disabled. They're also much less likely to be retired. This says to me that it's a younger demographic.

www.ons.gov.uk/.../fallback.png

[msc545]

Well, yes. I am curious as to what the relationship is between those two things. It seems odd.

[Levin]

@goaded Why is it your sole goal to defend the indefensible?

Looking after family? So what is the propensity in that religion that they would need to look after their family more than a Christian for example? You're full of shit. Don't waste my time with nonsense like this.

There is absolutely no justification for 50% of people in the 16-64 age category not to work. Do not bullshit me. They are a mature population, there's been a lot of Muslims here for more than 50 years. What is with people like you? It is not kindness if you give up something of yourself to accommodate someone else, it is weakness. The best metaphor I can give is a beat up woman who still 'loves' her abusive boyfriend. You are that person. You are that woman.

@msc545 Sorry, I do apologise for that. Well, that's an interesting question. It's like why is there a union in British politics at the moment between the left/the far left and Islam. This is like a union between Stalin and the US. Shit will hit the fan once Germany is defeated. So they're presently united in their common enemy (the boogeyman 'right').

[Levin]

Muslims and say, the Green Party, are naturally collectivist and economically on the left. However, they are dichotomously opposed on the social side, as the former are extremely socially conservative and the latter are very liberal. This is where it gets interesting.

But to answer your question, we have a very generous benefits system, here. Like I said, people at my work get 1800 after tax and I've seen benefits claims of 4000. There is your answer. The UK effectively subsidises people with shit salaries. But that has unintended consequences. What I do see (and again, I see people's benefit breakdowns), is Mr Husband will have a low salary, say 1200. Therefore one might infer if he was a taxi driver or self employed that he's putting a certain amount through the books. The government will pick up the tab for the rest. Wife will not be working. Can you see how toxic this system is? It actually encourages taking advantage of the system. There is no reason a mature arse fucking male with a wife and multiple kids should not be working full time. And 1200 is a part time salary.

Such systems also breed laziness and dependence.

[Levin]

Also, we're just incredibly weak and allow ourselves to be taken for granted. At the moment, unquestionably, Muslims are being subsidised by native Brits in the UK. That is what we can reasonably infer from the statistics.

[goaded]

"Why is it your sole goal to defend the indefensible?"
It's not. It's to find the truth and accurate data before getting into an argument.

Feel free to give a source for your claim "someone earning 1800 per month, after tax [gets] less than someone who arrived from Pakistan 6 months ago, and does not work, but gets twice as much in benefits,".

There's far too many ridiculous "those lazy [group] are taking all our jobs" comments out there. If they're taking your jobs, they're not lazy. If they're not entitled to work, they're not lazy. If their only crime is working when they're not permitted to, they're not lazy. If they're not legally allowed to earn a living, should the state simply let them starve?

The "left/the far left" simply believe Muslims, Gays, Trans, etc. are people, too. We even think the same of the right, which doesn't seem to be reciprocated.

[Levin]

@goaded Where do you propose I find a source for that? The information online about what entitles you to what is beyond opaque. Are you suggesting I am lying? To be fair, of course, I have added some colour to that. Benefit claims are highly variable. Benefits claims of 3700 or 4000 are definitely on the more unusual side. What would be more frequent is claims in the order of 2500 in the scenario where it is a couple and the wife is not working, the husband earns 1200. That gives you an income of 3700 per week for say 25 hours of work. The benefits cap on children has been removed, so 5 children can 'earn' you 1500 in itself.

They're not taking our jobs. They ain't working at all. You have tried to justify the claim that it is right or normal that 50% of people in a working age category, to not be working. 16-64. You tried to justify it, I called you out on that outright bullshit. Don't even try to justify that or I will ignore you for your flagrant stupidity. Those figures do not lie, and they cause a lot of resentment. And while any normal person, well say, you have a genuine grievance there, people like you cause even more resentment by trying to cover something which is disgusting. Okay, so you're saying the reason 50% don't work is because they're not allowed to by virtue of their residency? Are you really this stupid?

[Levin]

"The "left/the far left" simply believe Muslims, Gays, Trans, etc. are people, too"

More absolute hogwash. I don't have an issue with anyone provided they don't bullshit me. If people work and integrate, fair game, I have no issue with that. If they segregate, form parallel communities, and don't subscribe to our values, fuck children, then you can bet I have a real problem with that. When my grandad came after WW2, he didn't sit in his own community and shut himself off from everyone else. He integrated, he worked hard in a fucking factory, he didn't claim shit. The idea that you view other people as humans is just farcical bullshit. I have to hide my views in public because most people are leftards and I know it will get me ostracised. Especially when I'm in the city. There is definitely a lot of violence, and violence in thought to people who are on the right.

by the way, your best buds, Muslims, don't like gays. What are you going to do about that?

[goaded]

Show me facts that show you've got a "genuine grievance"! Without adding "some colour".

"Where do you propose I find a source for that?" I don't know, I've looked and can't find one. You said you'd "seen £3700 per month in Universal Credit claims for ESOL students." Where?

Incidentally, your "again, I see people's benefit breakdowns", was news to me, you'd not said that before.

"I called you out on that outright bullshit." No, you didn't. You talked about a supposed "need to look after their family more than a Christian", for example, when I never said it was a "need", I suggested it's a cultural tendency, as it was for everyone 50 years ago in Britain. It's all assertions, no supported facts.

What you need to show is that straight White Christian families don't get the same support if you're going to complain about it without looking bigoted.

"They ain't working at all." - Now *that's* bullshit, you just said 50% aged 16-64 are!

"Okay, so you're saying the reason 50% don't work is because they're not allowed to by virtue of their residency?"
No, I'm saying there are a lot of reasons, that might be one, being a carer, a tradwife, or still at school are others. I'll also point out that you started off by talking about "someone who arrived from Pakistan 6 months ago, and does not work"; that's where the residency comments come from.

[Levin]

@goaded you're like a British soap. I can't take you seriously. I'm willing to suspend some disbelief if the plot is otherwise reasonable. But this is beyond the pale.

You are a very stupid and naive man. That's all I have to say to you.

[goaded]

Well, I suppose that's almost as good as facts.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

Yes, and not really. We need more taxes on Billionaires just to fund the government, but giving everyone "free stuff" doesn't solve problems. If you give a mouse a cookie, he wants a glass of milk next.

[msc545]

Yeah God forbid. Anybody should want a cookie. How terrible.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

Half the population already gets paid to have children and gets paid "Earned Income Credit" which is one of the biggest single items on the budget for the Federal Government.

[msc545]

So what are you part of that? If you're not, I guess you don't get the cookies. If you are then I guess you do. Again I ask you so what?

[msc545]

Yeah, we should sell those children into slavery so they can work off what it costs to raise them, or we should probably sell them to other people who are willing to pay for them. Or maybe just let them starve to death because God forbid we should actually take care of them.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

No. People who can't afford to raise children should stop fucking. Period. That's the problem.

[msc545]

No, that is not the problem. The problem is the military industrial complex receives so much money from our government that the standard of living has gone way down in order to finance them. It's not worth it.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

The military budget is actually the same and sometimes smaller than it has ever been relative to dollar value. They spend 8% of GDP on military. Historically, before the USA had rose to power, nations spent 10% of GDP on military and had a flat 10% direct tax on all forms of income and a 20% direct tax on any Silver mined.

IN recent decades, automation has allowed fewer and fewer soldiers and sailors in the military, and the cost is mostly in paying the salaries of the remaining soldiers and sailors, plus "smart bombs"* which are actually costing us much more than they are worth, as it makes no sense to bomb a 25,000 dollars target using a million dollars smart bomb.

By the way, the reason we lose wars is because we are the only nation in the world which is actually DUMB enough to obey Geneva Convention. We fight nations which violate geneva convention from start to finish, and wonder why we can't beat them. If I were the President, I could make Iran surrender in 3 days flat, by bombing their oil refineries and water desalination plants.

[msc545]

I'm not interested in the dollar value of the military budget. I'm more interested in the fact that it's nothing more than a giant bribe to the weapons makers. That is money that could be being used for healthcare in it or education for many of these things, the people in this country really made.

[Smegskull]

Are they ripping you off or are your standards just too low?
Other than royalty no one is a billionaire without consent. People gave them their billions in exchange for goods or services. If people aren't happy with that they can just not buy at the price offered.

The problem with socialism in this regard is it can't tolerate individual consent. It only operates when the consent or the individual is ignored. Combine that with the fact the 80% of productivity comes fron 20% of the labour force and you have a recipe for oppression.

[msc545]

Oh yeah, they all worked hard for their money. Most billionaires in the United States got their money through manipulating the economy and through scamming people.

[Smegskull]

All transactions manipulate the economy. You would need to be more detailed. What scam, or which billionaires?

[msc545]

Are you capable of doing your own reading?

[Smegskull]

Sure. As long as it isn't French.

[msc545]

Then do so. If you can't research a simple topic, then there's nothing to talk about.

[Smegskull]

What are you implying I should research? I have studied economics and statistics extensively for my work.
I have looked into behavioral sciences a bit out of curiosity but I am not well read on the subject. So if you have a recommendation... (I am British so explaining why they are wrong will be fun for me)

[msc545]

Perhaps he could expand on the notion of consent and explain why individual consent is necessary. I quite understand the concept. I seriously am not sure I understand the concept.

[Smegskull]

Who is "he".

[msc545]

I mistyped it. I meant you, as in perhaps you could expand, etc.

[Smegskull]

You want me to explain why consent is necessary? necessary for what?
It isn't that it is necessary for people to consent to things. It is that gaining consent is morally right.

[msc545]

Do you think people need the consent to what precisely? being stolen from?

[Smegskull]

People usually vote for lower taxes but on occasion the public do vote to be stolen from with higher taxes, yes.
You could argue the consent is not informed, when a party runs on a platform of lower taxes and increases tax after getting in, but it is still consent.

[Iron_Man]

Do you really wanna live under socialism? Think my friend think be like water”

[Iron_Man]

https://youtu.be/e78SV6EjTQg

[msc545]

Do you really like it that billionaires steal from you every day that you work?

[Iron_Man]

How did they steal from me? I get paid by the homeowner in cash.

[msc545]

The order from Amazon is stealing from you. The order from any of the big retailers is stealing from you. If you pay taxes, they're stealing from you because they don't pay taxes.

[Iron_Man]

Rich people don’t pay property taxes

[msc545]

People don't pay any taxes at all.

[Iron_Man]

I do

[Iron_Man]

How much are your property taxes a year?

[msc545]

They are what they are but what difference does that make?

[msc545]

Yes, I do. At least my neighbors would have decent wages. Wouldn't have to worry about losing their homes. Would have decent health care and could afford to shop for groceries.

[Dargil]

If you want equal distribution of misery and poverty, socialism is perfect for you.

[msc545]

I would also like equal distribution of joy and resources. Don't tell me to look at capitalism for that, because that's bullshit.

[canamlusciouslad73]

Yes and H**L to the YES !!!

[DirtyOldMan777]

No and NO. Socialism has never worked and will never work.

[msc545]

Oh, and you know this, how exactly? Do you wanna give us some examples of how it's not worked? Do you wanna delineate the difference between communism and capitalism before you do that? Do you even know that difference?

[DirtyOldMan777]

History proves it. name one that has worked?

[msc545]

Name one place where it has failed

[DirtyOldMan777]

most of Europe, Canada is failing, Cuba, N. Korea, just to name a few.

[msc545]

Gee, that would surprise most Europeans, most Canadians, most Koreans, and most Cubans, but you've never been to any of these places to see for yourself, have you?

[msc545]

Just keep repeating government propaganda and corporate propaganda which are essentially the same thing. If it makes you feel better. Don't try to persuade other people that anything you say is anything other than bullshit.

[msc545]

It works very well when implemented properly. What doesn't work is capitalism, and you are experiencing that right now.

[Sevenpointfive]

yes. i hope it will be