Taxation system in a Marx society?

@Wajoma said
shag pseudy you've been copy/pasting 'dialectical materialism' for years now and it's you that doesn't know what it means or how it relates to the discussion or your desire to force whacky long disproven economic theories on unwilling citizens.

The solution has always been a free society and then all the shag pseudys can get together in a club and see who's going to be sacr ...[text shortened]... yone to join your club and I can understand why you wouldn't want to test your ideas in this manner.

Your solutions are laughably impracticle.
That’s why you and Ayn Rand are a complete joke.

Wake up sunshine. You’re a baby stuck in a loop.

@shavixmir said
Your solutions are laughably impracticle.
That’s why you and Ayn Rand are a complete joke.

Wake up sunshine. You’re a baby stuck in a loop.

"Among the novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other involves orcs."

@Zahlanzi said
"Regarding that which Wajoma writes (I love the shoe-sharing), please tell us what of our possessions would most likely be shared. "
Everything you own. You in particular. Because when i am supreme leader i will make you share everything you owned. Just you

"How would 'they' (You never tell us who they are)"
I am they. It is my revolution, remember?
"decide what we ha ...[text shortened]... le make a pie"
The majority who work 60/h weeks do it because they have to not because they want to

First para was enough . Puerile will get you no where, but you are nowhere. A puzzle indeed.

@shavixmir said
Uhuh.
Moron.

That’s why nobody takes you seriously.
You rattle on about your wee subject, without comprehending the larger picture of what it would mean.

Your solutions cannot work in the real world. That’s why even capitalists ignore them.

Note: you asked.

So, you get an answer… and either you don’t like the answer and act like you didn’t get one, or in this case insult the person giving the answer.

Shag hypocritters for brains

@Wajoma said
Note: you asked.

So, you get an answer… and either you don’t like the answer and act like you didn’t get one, or in this case insult the person giving the answer.

Shag hypocritters for brains

Oh, I read your answer to my questioning your reasoning and how to deal with planning like in Hamburg.

And your answer was clear: you can’t broach a realistic situation with your theory. Because it fails per definition.

Hence that no capitalist government even attempts it. It’s moronic to the extreme.

@shavixmir said
Oh, I read your answer to my questioning your reasoning and how to deal with planning like in Hamburg.

And your answer was clear: you can’t broach a realistic situation with your theory. Because it fails per definition.

Hence that no capitalist government even attempts it. It’s moronic to the extreme.

anti-dialectical materialism.

You're out of your depth lol.

BTW I haven't gotten to solutions yet. You asked why there's a housing shortage, (clue: It's not because there's one giant house and we all have to share the bathroom) I told you, you don't like the answer. So you revert (as per my advice) to your safest posting record, the single ijit emoji or equivalent.

@Wajoma said
anti-dialectical materialism.

You're out of your depth lol.

You can copy what I say all you want, it doesn’t make you correct or even witty.

The fact of the matter is that Average Joe wanted Marxist theory on taxation and I gave it to him.
And the fact of the matter is, is that you fall back on your diatribe of Randian BS, which can’t handle any real world situation.

Crawl back to your rack gimp boy, and never let your blathering idiocy pollute this forum again.

@shavixmir said
You can copy what I say all you want, it doesn’t make you correct or even witty.

The fact of the matter is that Average Joe wanted Marxist theory on taxation and I gave it to him.
And the fact of the matter is, is that you fall back on your diatribe of Randian BS, which can’t handle any real world situation.

Crawl back to your rack gimp boy, and never let your blathering idiocy pollute this forum again.

but did you say anti dis-interpretative dialectical materialism.

No, no you did not, no,

@shavixmir said
You can copy what I say all you want, it doesn’t make you correct or even witty.

shag doody, did you say trans dialectical materialism?

No, no you didn't, did you, no.

Perhaps you can comment on it, also known as; chicks with dicks dialectical materialism, or mentally ill homosexual dialectical materialism. I think it totals your argument.

@Zahlanzi said
Because everyone is equal but I am more equal than you.

Paraphrasing Orwell zahlooney bambooozle but not in a good way.

Here's a nice quote from Henry Hazlitt

"The whole gospel of Karl Marx can be summed up in one sentence; Hate the man who is better off than you."

@AverageJoe1 said
Well, I drive my car to work. After work, I might pick up my kindergarteners, or meet my friends at a pub for a nice occasion together, after which I will go get in my car and go home. Since I cannot do all of this with a train, you are asking me to change live to fit in with the masses. Your people will be moving people like one would move cattle.
And did you get a ...[text shortened]... based on life at a Thanksgiving table, where everyone all over can come and feast in the same venue.

Automobiles in private possession are dinosaurs, doomed to extinction. It doesn't matter whether the economy is capitalistic or any other. It may not happen in your or my lifetime.

Of course you can keep your Austin Healy, you just won't have to to arrange your daily affairs, that's all. Arranging daily affairs could be managed by a combination of public transport & semi-automated delivery systems. There is no point in each person in the neighborhood driving his own clattery pollution machine to the supermarket any more. The sensible solution is for people to place orders for their provisions online and for a single delivery van (or possibly a self-piloting drone) to deliver the provisions to an entire neighborhood, thereby saving massively on transport costs, fuel, wear and tear on the road surface, not to mention fewer traffic accidents.

It is important to distinguish needs from comforts and luxuries. Capitalism provides too many trivial comforts and luxuries without having provided for people's needs. So, to be clear: no one needs a private jet or an Austin Healy. A need is something from which you die if it is not met: food, water, shelter, medical care (by which I do not mean sex change operations and bigger boobs!--those are choices, not needs). No one dies if he doesn't have a private jet or an Austin Healy or bigger boobs.

The economic system, whatever it is, should cover needs first, and the comforts and luxuries can be distributed from whatever surplus production capacity remains.

@moonbus said
Automobiles in private possession are dinosaurs, doomed to extinction. It doesn't matter whether the economy is capitalistic or any other. It may not happen in your or my lifetime.

Of course you can keep your Austin Healy, you just won't have to to arrange your daily affairs, that's all. Arranging daily affairs could be managed by a combination of public transport & ...[text shortened]... and the comforts and luxuries can be distributed from whatever surplus production capacity remains.

Thanks for a direct answer, the other socialists here dodge the fact that, in your words,...."I will not be able to arrange my affairs (unbelievable you could even type that), which would be managed by a combination of public transport & semi-automated delivery systems".
After my wife somehow getting to a supermarket at an appointed time, how will she get 6 bags of groceries back home. And if you have an online system, how can I inspect my 'provisions'...jesus,, such as spring onions for freshness, not brown on the end. You think I am being cute here? Seriously, Moonbus. My wife an excellent cook, wants to squeeze her tomato.
You belabor the concept of need..... You use the word literally. I walk 6 miles a day, I need my Nikes, which are $165.00. Will your people tell me to get cheap walmart shoes? I assume, they would rule that I do not need those shoes.
Comforts and luxuries 'distributed'? Would that include to illegal immigrants. You see, now get this, they are getting our comforts and luxuries today. And I have a feeling, that what you would consider comforts and luxuries, would be defined by me, AvJoe, as needs. No question.
You will put me on the 'public transport' with my golf bag (will it go to the country club?) (is a country club a need? It is to me, keeps me young). And a public transport, on the way to church with my family, who, might have to find separate seats on the transport, might find me sitting next to Shav, reading porn and smelling, using foul language. You see, I have never ridden on any such thing except upscale European stuff, and NYC subway, which I have quit.
You really want to control and dictate the way free people live, so that they cannot be free anymore? You are here saying that the government will control us. Marx? Which of your sick economies is this one?

@AverageJoe1 said
Thanks for a direct answer, the other socialists here dodge the fact that, in your words,...."I will not be able to arrange my affairs (unbelievable you could even type that), which would be managed by a combination of public transport & semi-automated delivery systems".
After my wife somehow getting to a supermarket at an appointed time, how will she get 6 bags of g ...[text shortened]... here saying that the government will control us. Marx? Which of your sick economies is this one?

Yes, I know, every housewife thinks she simply must select her own tomatoes. Get real: for all but the last 250 years of h.sap.'s sorjourn on this planet, roughly 800,000 years of evolution, 90% of the human population had to gulp down whatever wasn't fast enough to get away from us. We have luxury problems.

I'm not saying the govt should force people to do this; I'm saying it will no longer be possible to continue as we have done for the last 250 years. The present capitalist system, whereby personal profit and not social weal is the sole criterion of success, is going to collapse and people will live less comfortable lives. The question is whether we do so voluntarily and relatively humanely, or under duress of circumstances. Large portions of the planet will cease to be arable or inhabitable, due to climate change (it is happening, don't try to deny it--and it does not matter whether humans are causing it), with the inevitable result that there will be mass migrations on a scale never seen in the last 800,000 years. Hunger knows no national borders. No army, no wall, no lines on maps, no English Channel, will stop literally tens of millions of people who are hungry. So, we have two options: implement a sensible distribution of resources voluntarily and relatively humanely, or let famine, frenzy, and pestilence do it for us. We have roughly 200 years left, in my estimation.

@moonbus said
Yes, I know, every housewife thinks she simply must select her own tomatoes. Get real: for all but the last 250 years of h.sap.'s sorjourn on this planet, roughly 800,000 years of evolution, 90% of the human population had to gulp down whatever wasn't fast enough to get away from us. We have luxury problems.

I'm not saying the govt should force people to do this; I' ...[text shortened]... r let famine, frenzy, and pestilence do it for us. We have roughly 200 years left, in my estimation.

Roughly 200 years lol. How many times will the doom sayers keep adjusting the point of no return line. My question is how long in this discussion before moonbus gives up on the word 'voluntarily'. How long before we see some true colors.

Man hasn't made a dint in available resources yet.

@moonbus said
Yes, I know, every housewife thinks she simply must select her own tomatoes. Get real: for all but the last 250 years of h.sap.'s sorjourn on this planet, roughly 800,000 years of evolution, 90% of the human population had to gulp down whatever wasn't fast enough to get away from us. We have luxury problems.

I'm not saying the govt should force people to do this; I' ...[text shortened]... r let famine, frenzy, and pestilence do it for us. We have roughly 200 years left, in my estimation.

If you libs keep giving money and sustenance (free housing, jesus) and paying their bills, they will not worry a whole lot about earning their way through life. Ooops, am I going too fast for you, really hard for you to digest, I know.
So if you still follow, THIS is why people will get hungry, and also wanting things that they can't afford, like $165Nikes. They become more dependent. Shav himself, at working only 20 hours a week, will be counting on people who are independent to pay for his livelihood. So, yes, it will all snowball worldwide and you and Marx will get your way. You climate people....we may pick up 1 degree in the next hundred years, plants and people will adjust naturally, like animals in the north developed more fur naturally, and then....and THEN..the global cooling will begin. Been going on for a loooooooong time. It is amazing that Biden says climate is the Number ONE problem we have, while people live in hell in his failing economic society. How much is he devoting to Climate Control?
I was not being funny about the tomato analogy. Just how far do you want to take it. My cousin Vinny has 5 kids, each plays in 2 different sports, competing across town here and there. Train at my front door? Where will I pick it up? If people are as frantic as you say they are, one could kidnap one of my kids as the door opens on Stop number 63. Zahlanzi said yesterday he does not like me. What if he is in the same train car and beats me up? I am really getting tired of these analogies. You truly want nanny government, a life of no choices, a bunch of sheep. You want to be a sheep. The rich, and I will be one, will be the socialists. The masses 'The People!' will live under socialism, they will unfortunately not be socialists. No more glittering lights of love and laughter, they will all be putting sausages under their ragged coats and fighting for a train seat, in the Lord of the Flies.
This has been fun, I know you have been putting me on, but it gave me a moment to throw this at the real Marxists. We have 3 that I am sure of. And BTW, I know you have been joshing, because your opening line says you do not want govt to force people....but you do!!