popa_bar_abba

Well, exactly what I said. I am accusing the Dati leumi rabbonim of having the hashkafa they do for reasons besides that they legitimately and genuinely think it is correct al pi torah. That is offensive, and almost certainly incorrect.

It is like when people say that chareidi rabbonim have the opinions they do because of some ulterior motive. Like when they say that the agunah problem is because the rabbis don’t care enough to make it muttar, etc.

Yes, you are correct, anIsraeliyid.

4. I think we’re not speaking to each other then. The part that is bothering me is that the decision is not being made for the common good–it is being made for the voter’s personal good, and it consists of taking from the other and keeping it. I don’t understand how you can compare that to a joint public decision on how to spend funds that are evenly taken.

5 & 6. Well, my point is that it should not depend on the context. My point is that when you decide to take something from me for your personal gain–there can never be a justification for it. That the theory of democratic government fails when it ceases to be a government of the majority for the common good and becomes a government of the majority for personal good.

I’ll answer your question: It depends on the voting. If the people are all voting to extract value from the other for themselves, then it is immoral. I don’t care what the breakdown is–I just care what the underlying theory is.

7. I still don’t know why you think it matters if they are building palaces or cardboard box houses. You are taking from me.

And the notion that I somehow owe it to you because the police protection helps me earn it, is insulting and wrong. I’ve already paid for the police protection, I’ve already paid for the roads, and the army, and the SEC, and the whole government. So now all that is still left is really mine. And now I’ve also got to pay for your heating?

If they are not different, you admit the idea of seeing stars is another way of referring to infatuation.

We don’t need to use the word “admit”; this is not a interrogation, and I’m not trying to hide anything from you. When we discuss something, we can use the word “concede”.

My response is that I’m not completely sure. I think that they are pretty much the same thing, but if you describe a behavior or feeling and I think that is not what I’m referring to, then I’ll say that.

Yes, you are.

My curve is graphing the relationship between the extent to which you see stars, and how good your marriage is. Thus, if you are a 1 on the seeing stars axis, you will only be a 1 on the marriage happiness axis. (how do I make the negative work? it seems like negative stars would still make positive happiness in my graph).

You are correct that this is different from how my original post was posed, which was that seeing stars is a binary decision and then happy marriage correlates with seeing stars. If so, I need to make a new graph.

x is how much stars you are seeing.

y is happy marriage.

the definition of seeing stars is 100

y = x – 100 (I’m not making it exponential because I’m not math sophisticated enough)

Taxing assets is double taxation. You already took your cut when I earned it and didn’t spend it.

Squeak is a fascist.

Also, there is no fundamental difference between a double tax and a single tax. If I first tax you 10 and then another 10, that is the same as taxing you 20.

Though perhaps you mean it is unfair to tax people for not spending their money right away. But that doesn’t seem to me any more unfair than taxing people for earning money to begin with.

Let’s not be talking about present situations, since then we’ll have to argue about facts. And that would be a silly discussion. (however, the idea that rich pay less taxes is retarded propaganda, and not remotely true).

So we’ll ignore specific situations, and the question is only: Is it moral or correct for poor people to vote for governments which will take from the rich and keep it for themselves? This avoids having to talk about your points 1 and 2. For the sake of discussion, I’ll concede that poor people pay more tax than rich people and rich people get more benefits than poor people do.

4. I think your point 4 is directly addressing the relevant question, but I don’t find it highly convincing. I don’t see how laundering the money through general revenues helps. If a politician runs for office proclaiming “I will tax rich people and take care of you, and I will also make roads”, that is still stealing in my book.

5 & 6. I don’t think this is the relevant question. Sure, rich people might want it. But since they are paying for it, they should be the ones to decide. You say that the majority decides–yes, that is precisely the problem, and it is not a response. When the majority decides to take stuff from the minority, that is just plain tyranny and stealing.

7. I’m not aware why it makes a difference if we give out cash or guns or cars or milk and bread. I’m not aware that stealing bread is more moral than stealing cigarettes.

yytz, I’ll engage you on that. You wrote a lot so let me see if I can fairly distill it and see what I think.

I will put my characterization of your points in blockquote.

1. The taxes in this country are not in form of the poor taking from the rich and keeping for themselves, since they also pay sales taxes and some other excise taxes.

2. People who get more than they pay in one year may give more in a different year.

3. Even if people are getting more in their lifetime than they pay, they are not the majority, so I am not correct that they are using their votes to do this.

4. Even if they are the majority, it is not stealing because they need it to survive.

5. The wealthy are willing to give it to avoid being robbed from on an individual basis.

6. Rich people should view it as a form of insurance in case they become poor.

7. Money is also spent on other stuff, and perhaps the rich people are getting value through that.

Here is my thinking, point by point.

1. No, I think you have to view it on a net basis, as you say later. Blazes, they are paying those sales taxes with the food stamps and EITC I gave them.

2. Sure, but most people know around where they’ll be for the foreseeable future. But that is probably why we don’t hit the 51% percentile and above so hard, because people think they might be in it. That is why the rhetoric goes after the “1%”.

3. I think they are quite close to a majority. But that is not really the point–there is plenty of political power without being an actual majority. Case in point: Chareidim. Certainly you agree the chareidim are doing this even though they are not actually a majority.

4. No, that is exactly stealing.

5. That is also exactly stealing. If I don’t give it you’ll riot and kill me.

6. I might have reasons to give it. How about I’ll decide that–not you.

7. I think it is unarguable that the largest point of our tax system is to redistribute wealth. Sure, some of it comes back to the rich people, and that part of it I am ok with. But I don’t think that “kashers” the rest of it.

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch.” –Ben Franklin

Oh. I thought hillel and hallel were correlated. Maybe I should have gone to shul this morning after all.

Does a clear plastic bag make it non nisalem min haayin?

My minhag is that it works for the eyes, but not for the wine. For the wine, it needs to be without any chatzitza.

“If the chachomim decide I must give you charity–I trust that they are doing what Hashem wants and that I must give it because that is what Hashem wants.

If you vote that I should give you charity–that is just stealing.”

Wrong. Taxes are mutar. See Bava Kamma 113.

Somehow I feel like you’re not responding to me.

yo how long did it take to listen to? the book is a freaking tome.

I think it is like 56 hours or someat.