|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 23, 2019 22:40:02 GMT -5
The problem is that you are claiming that "you never said taxation and private charity are similar" when you made a post drawing an analogy between private charity and taxation. Remember, contrary to Randian beliefs, you can't have your cake and eat it. As the posts clearly show, I was making contrasting private charity with tax-supported public welfare programs. I was pointing out their differences. I am very very sorry if this led you to falsely believe that they are similar. After all, how can something based on force be similar to something that is based on voluntary payment? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2019 2:01:44 GMT -5
The problem is that you are claiming that "you never said taxation and private charity are similar" when you made a post drawing an analogy between private charity and taxation. Remember, contrary to Randian beliefs, you can't have your cake and eat it. As the posts clearly show, I was making contrasting private charity with tax-supported public welfare programs. I was pointing out their differences. Actually, you attempted to render my argument absurd by pointing out that by my argument, taxation would be exploitation too, expecting me to defend taxes - after all, a leftist would love everything that the government does, wouldn't he! And then you were left with no way to counter when I said that yes, by a Marxist reading, taxes would be seen as exploitation, much like anything else a capitalist state did. Put simply, you were attempting an argumentum ad absurdum, but misread my position in this argument.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 24, 2019 16:14:25 GMT -5
As the posts clearly show, I was making contrasting private charity with tax-supported public welfare programs. I was pointing out their differences. Actually, you attempted to render my argument absurd by pointing out that by my argument, taxation would be exploitation too, expecting me to defend taxes - after all, a leftist would love everything that the government does, wouldn't he! And then you were left with no way to counter when I said that yes, by a Marxist reading, taxes would be seen as exploitation, much like anything else a capitalist state did. Put simply, you were attempting an argumentum ad absurdum, but misread my position in this argument. What Dreamworld are you living in? What you REALLY said was that donations people Voluntarily Give to private charities are just like the taxes people are forced to pay. And that of course is absurd because taxation IS forced by Voluntary Donations are not.
And of course I agree with you that taxes are a form of exploitation in a Capitalist stete...and in a Socialist state...and even in a Social-Democratic state. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2019 10:55:29 GMT -5
What Dreamworld are you living in? What you REALLY said was that donations people Voluntarily Give to private charities are just like the taxes people are forced to pay. Where did I say that?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 27, 2019 16:09:52 GMT -5
What Dreamworld are you living in? What you REALLY said was that donations people Voluntarily Give to private charities are just like the taxes people are forced to pay. Where did I say that?
Oh! Then I am mistaken? Then you don't believe donations people voluntarily give to private charities are just like taxes that people are forced to pay?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2019 3:32:19 GMT -5
Your ability to put words into my mouth that I never said never ceases to amaze me.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 28, 2019 11:55:24 GMT -5
Your ability to put words into my mouth that I never said never ceases to amaze me.
And your ability to misread what I wrote never ceases to amaze me. Look at my post again. I was simply asking a question, a question that you are apparently trying to avoid answering.
So why are you avoiding answering a simple, straightforward question? Here it is again:
Then you don't believe donations people voluntarily give to private charities are just like taxes that people are forced to pay?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2019 2:13:38 GMT -5
Of course I don't believe that charity donations are taxes. For one, it wouldn't make sense to write off paid taxes as tax exemptions.
Now please answer the very simple question what this has to do with exploitation.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 30, 2019 14:22:47 GMT -5
Of course I don't believe that charity donations are taxes. For one, it wouldn't make sense to write off paid taxes as tax exemptions. So you are saying that no one would make charitable donations if there were no tax deduction? But time devoted to charitable organizations is NOT deductible. Yet people devote a lot of time volunteering. So your implication here is false. Actually that is what I was asking you. What does donating time and money voluntarily to charitable organizations have to do with "exploitation?" So far you haven't answered. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2019 1:08:20 GMT -5
Of course I don't believe that charity donations are taxes. For one, it wouldn't make sense to write off paid taxes as tax exemptions. So you are saying that no one would make charitable donations if there were no tax deduction? How on Earth would you come to such a conclusion? Yes. That's the whole reason why so many private charities can even be functional. Because the vast majority of people work there for free, and those few who do get paid still work for a pittance. I already answered your question on the last page. For your convenience, here is a copy of my earlier response, in case you forgot about it and just didn't feel like making the nigh-insurmountable effort of clicking the "back" button: Very well. Then exactly how does the owner of a non-profit business take the benefits?
Most people who work for charities do so voluntarily i.e. without fair compensation for the work they put in.
Even if they were being paid (and as I have said, most are not),they would at best be (badly) compensated for the time they put in, but never for the value they created through their work - the latter is all in the benefit of their employer.
Yes, but not all benefit is financial profit. Funny coincidence by the way - earlier this year, social workers and caregivers in several major Austrian charities went on strike because they were being paid significantly less than their colleagues in government-funded facilities in the same field.
We can go around for a third time if you like, but I am getting tired of this. If you have an actual argument to make, then please state it clearly. Otherwise, all you're doing here is wasting my time.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 1, 2019 13:06:29 GMT -5
So you are saying that no one would make charitable donations if there were no tax deduction? How on Earth would you come to such a conclusion? I came to that conclusion from what you said, of course. You said "Of course I don't believe that charity donations are taxes. For one, it wouldn't make sense to write off paid taxes as tax exemptions." Were you implying that people only give to charity to get a tax exemption?It certainly sounds as if you were. Once again you miss the point.Donations to Charity are VOLUNTARY. Paying taxes is not. People can get sent to jail for Tax Evasion. No one ever went to jail for refusing to give to charity. My argument is there is a clear difference between someone who points a gun to you and demands that you give them money and someone who asks "Would you please give money or time to this worthy cause?" It's the difference between coresion and voluntary consent.
Have you ever seen anyone eager to be robbed at gunpoint? But there are people who eagerly give money and time to charity.
How can you fail to see this? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2019 21:51:44 GMT -5
Have you ever seen anyone eager to be robbed at gunpoint? But there are people who eagerly give money and time to charity.
How can you fail to see this? Bob LOL charity workers have been striking because they get shafted by major charities here. But I guess it's okay because they aren't literally murdered if they don't show up at work and get fired as a result. Unlike all those people murdered because they didn't pay their taxes on time.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 1, 2019 23:46:21 GMT -5
Have you ever seen anyone eager to be robbed at gunpoint? But there are people who eagerly give money and time to charity. How can you fail to see this? Bob LOL charity workers have been striking because they get shafted by major charities here. But I guess it's okay because they aren't literally murdered if they don't show up at work and get fired as a result. Red Herring. Those workers took jobs to get paid. They are totally different from volunteer workers who cheerfully work for nothing but the satisfaction that they are doing something good. LOL! You don't kill people for Tax evasion. If you kill them, you can't collect any more of their money. You just send them to jail. Like these people: www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/04/15/23-sobering-tax-evasion-jail-terms-on-tax-day/#517998e7148dThat's enough to scare people to pay their taxes. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2019 1:38:06 GMT -5
LOL charity workers have been striking because they get shafted by major charities here. But I guess it's okay because they aren't literally murdered if they don't show up at work and get fired as a result. Red Herring. Those workers took jobs to get paid. They are totally different from volunteer workers who cheerfully work for nothing but the satisfaction that they are doing something good. Yes, workers who are happy are different from workers who aren't happy - one group is happy, the other is not! A very accurate observation, congratulations! LOL! You don't kill people for Tax evasion. Then what was your "gun to your head" metaphor supposed to describe?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 2, 2019 13:57:10 GMT -5
Red Herring. Those workers took jobs to get paid. They are totally different from volunteer workers who cheerfully work for nothing but the satisfaction that they are doing something good. Yes, workers who are happy are different from workers who aren't happy - one group is happy, the other is not! A very accurate observation, congratulations! Strawman. I never said that. You made it up. What I did say is there is a difference between people who work FOR PAY and people voluntarily work without pay simply because their charitable work gives them great satisfaction. How about people who have hobbies? Who's "exploiting" them? The "gun to the head" metaphor describes a threat to one's safety. And as far as a death penalty for tax evasion, China had one until 2011. "China Drops Death Penalty for Tax Evasion"
As I pointed out earlier, once you kill people, you can't tax them any more. So the death penalty for tax evasion is not profitable. Apparently the Chinese government finally found that out.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2019 16:06:43 GMT -5
Yes, workers who are happy are different from workers who aren't happy - one group is happy, the other is not! A very accurate observation, congratulations! Strawman. I never said that. You made it up. What I did say is there is a difference between people who work FOR PAY and people voluntarily work without pay simply because their charitable work gives them great satisfaction. And...? What's the difference? According to Randianism, "pay" is anything that makes you feel good, so according to your own philosophy, the latter group got paid just as much as the former.
According to Randianism, a smile and a pat on the back are just as good as payment as actual money that buys you food and shelter, because apparently for Randians the concept of fungible currency either does not exist or they have never heard of it.
Apparently, Ayn Rand never actually had to buy groceries for herself. Just imagine her entering a shop and assuming that, just because she smiled at the cashier, she'd be allowed to take her food home for free.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 4, 2019 21:42:05 GMT -5
Strawman. I never said that. You made it up. What I did say is there is a difference between people who work FOR PAY and people voluntarily work without pay simply because their charitable work gives them great satisfaction. And...? What's the difference? The difference is the first group get cash and the second group get satisfaction. Well gee, I've read a lot of Rand's works but I've never seen anything like that. Could you please post a quote where she actually made that claim? Thanks in advance. Gosh! I never saw that claim made either. Could you please post a quote where someone actually said that? I know how much supplying direct quotes means to you because you made such a big issue of it when you criticized Hicks for not giving quotes. Actually, I showed that he did give a lot of quotes, so you don't have to worry about that issue again. Thanks in advance again. Actually, she and her husband struggled economically until a movie company gave her a bundle for the movie rights to "The Fountainhead." Where did you say you get your facts from again? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2019 10:25:45 GMT -5
And...? What's the difference? The difference is the first group get cash and the second group get satisfaction. And according to your own argument, they are both getting "paid", so there is no difference.
How often rents you paid rent with your satisfaction, by the way?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 5, 2019 11:18:02 GMT -5
The difference is the first group get cash and the second group get satisfaction. And according to your own argument, they are both getting "paid", so there is no difference. In effect, yes. So sine the volunteers are getting paid,, there is no exploitation. With charity work, only volunteer work and donations are paid with satisfaction. However, if a landlord let a poor family stay in a home for free, the landlord would be getting paid with satisfaction. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2019 12:11:58 GMT -5
And according to your own argument, they are both getting "paid", so there is no difference. In effect, yes. So sine the volunteers are getting paid,, there is no exploitation. But the issue of exploitation was never about whether they were getting paid or not. "Exploitation of labour (or labor) is the act of treating one's workers unfairly for one's own benefit. It is a social relationship based on an asymmetry in a power relationship between workers and their employers." So you agree that "satisfaction" is not a fungible currency. Thanks for clearing that up.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 5, 2019 15:32:59 GMT -5
In effect, yes. So since the volunteers are getting paid,, there is no exploitation. But the issue of exploitation was never about whether they were getting paid or not. Remember, this is the definition you supplied: "Exploitation of labour (or labor) is the act of treating one's workers unfairly for one's own benefit. It is a social relationship based on an asymmetry in a power relationship between workers and their employers."Again you are claiming that Volunteer Charity Workers are being treated unfairly. But you still haven't given any supporting evidence. Another Strawman. I never said that. Those are your words, not mine. In fact, "satisfaction" is a fungible currency. "fungible adjective Law. (especially of goods) being of such nature or kind as to be freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another of like nature or kind." www.dictionary.com/browse/fungibleIn the case of charity work, satisfaction is obviously being accepted in place of money. Satisfaction is fungible. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2019 15:18:22 GMT -5
You claimed that Satisfaction is a freely exchangeable currency, so it would be exchangeable as payment in the same manner we use money for, correct?
So how come that you can't actually pay your groceries with Satisfaction, and are being made to use money instead? Governments meddling in the free market of Satisfaction?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 6, 2019 17:31:27 GMT -5
You claimed that Satisfaction is a freely exchangeable currency, so it would be exchangeable as payment in the same manner we use money for, correct?
So how come that you can't actually pay your groceries with Satisfaction, and are being made to use money instead? Governments meddling in the free market of Satisfaction?
What exactly makes a currency "exchangeable?"
There is nothing intrinsic in metals, paper with ink on it, wampum, sea shells, or even salt that could make any of them "money." Yet they have all been used as currency at one time or another.
Money is a Social Fact. Something becomes money when people agree that it is. And there is no law that says people have to use official government currency when they are making a trade.
If someone is soliciting people to volunteer as charity workers, it is perfectly legitimate for them to say "Look at the satisfaction you will be getting in return." And they would be right. In that case, "satisfaction" is being used as a currency.
As for contributing food,
"Charitable contributions of food are given special treatment in the Code (Sec. 170(e)(3)(C)). And a recent change in the law makes it easier for taxpayers to claim charitable deductions for food products donated to charity (Section 113 of the Protecting Americans From Tax Hikes Act (PATH), P.L. 114-113)."
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2019 11:59:37 GMT -5
You claimed that Satisfaction is a freely exchangeable currency, so it would be exchangeable as payment in the same manner we use money for, correct? So how come that you can't actually pay your groceries with Satisfaction, and are being made to use money instead? Governments meddling in the free market of Satisfaction?
What exactly makes a currency "exchangeable?" Money is a Social Fact. Something becomes money when people agree that it is. And there is no law that says people have to use official government currency when they are making a trade.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2019 12:06:10 GMT -5
Put simply: My local supermarket is obligated to sell me food in exchange for my national currency. My local supermarket is not obligated to sell me food for hugs and smiles, as pleasant as they may feel for any particular individual.
Therefore, hugs and smiles are not a fungible currency, and therefore not a valid form of payment. A workplace that "pays" me in hugs and smiles is shafting me for my real payment.
But, again, this has little to do with Exploitation in the Marxist sense.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 7, 2019 14:18:30 GMT -5
Put simply: My local supermarket is obligated to sell me food in exchange for my national currency. Wrong. The supermarket is not obligated to sell you anything at all if they do not want to do business with you. In addition, if the owner of the supermarket wants to give food to charity, there is no law to prevent that. Ever hear of a fast food restaurant chain called "Pret a Manger"? They have stores in several countries. Be sure to contact Pret and tell them that they are being ripped off. The point is that there is nothing to prevent them from doing that either. Pret a Manger gives some of their food away and they don't even ask for hugs and smiles in return! Wrong again. "Valid payment" is whatever the parties involved agree is valid payment.Not if you have agreed that "hugs and smiles" are valid payment. One more time: Valid Payment is whatever the parties involved AGREE is valid payment.Yes, I agree! Volunteer charity work and voluntary donations have nothing at all to do with Marxist "exploitation." In fact, they have nothing to do with "exploitation" at all. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2019 16:53:51 GMT -5
Put simply: My local supermarket is obligated to sell me food in exchange for my national currency. Wrong. The supermarket is not obligated to sell you anything at all if they do not want to do business with you. But if they do agree to do business with me, they are obligated to take my legal tender. They are not obligated to give me their food as a gift.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2019 16:57:11 GMT -5
Sure they have. They are labor for the sake of another's material benefit, same as wage labor.
In fact, they are wage labor, only without a wage to be paid.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 7, 2019 18:06:02 GMT -5
Wrong. The supermarket is not obligated to sell you anything at all if they do not want to do business with you. But if they do agree to do business with me, they are obligated to take my legal tender. Wrong. They are only obligated to accept legal tender if that is part of their agreement. There is nothing to stop them from doing business with something other than legal tender. For example, that supermarket may decide to give away food to a charity for free, just like Pret a Manger does. The point is there is nothing to stop them from from giving their food to anyone as a gift. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 7, 2019 18:12:31 GMT -5
Sure they have. They are labor for the sake of another's material benefit, same as wage labor. In fact, they are wage labor, only without a wage to be paid. So you are claiming that all volunteer charity workers are being "cheated?" And the people who donate money to charity too? If so, why don't you tell these poor, benighted fools about their plight? I'm sure they will give your message all the attention it properly deserves? Bob
|
|