A) The government isn't making enough tax revenue to substantiate all the existing and speculative social benefits you want, which leads it to take loans that it obviously can't cover, which will lead to a recession which will degrade our living standards into oblivion.
B) The economic stagnation that is caused by the extensive taxation that the government partakes in order to cover the existing social benefits is degrading our living standards to the extent that we would be better off without said social benefits and by extension taxation as we would be free to spend our money.
Oh god the irony, nowhere have I stated that socialism or communism necessitates expanding the state, effectively making your argument a straw man. Other than that, as you seem to advocate communism, here is my argument against it:
As far as I understand communism is a societal state in which each member of society contributes the entirety of their labor to a common inventory which each member of society has equal access to. If that is the case can I take more than I contribute to the common inventory? If true that means someone else is left with less than he contributed in which case why would that person want to be part of a communist society? Can I only take as much as I contribute? if that is the case why be part of a communist society in the first place?
Do I seriously need to explain why high tax rates stagnate the economy? please educate yourself.
Oh and here's the definition of a straw man so you stop randomly accusing me of using one.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/
First of all it should go into paying off the national debt obviously, and after that it shouldn't exist, taxation should be reduced and kept to a minimum, so does government spending.
Again, you're ignoring the fact that:
A) The government isn't making enough tax revenue to substantiate all the existing and speculative social benefits you want, which leads it to take loans that it obviously can't cover, which will lead to a recession which will degrade our living standards into oblivion.
B) The economic stagnation that is caused by the extensive taxation that the government partakes in order to cover the existing social benefits is degrading our living standards to the extent that we would be better off without said social benefits and be extension taxation as we would be free to spend our money.
If we increase the corporate tax rate the corporation will move to countries with lower corporate tax rate and we'd lose both the corporations to tax and the employment they bring.
The taxation that is required in order to fund your failing safety net is stagnating the economy to the extent that people would be better off (living standards wise) without it. Not to mention that Your government doesn't even make enough tax revenue to pay for it, it relies on loans that it obviously can't pay, which will eventually lead to a recession. Oh, and Prove that people would've died without your safety net.
And to think you told me I'm ignorant of the reality of modern western economic systems. Countries rack up national debt in the way of the government spending more money than it collects by taxation, and on what does the government spend the most? welfare and social programs. Other than that you're operating on the assumption that living standards will decrease as a result of the government ceasing it's social programs, which isn't the case.
Yes indeed, each and every modern western society is, in fact, your blend of socialism and capitalism, and almost each and every modern western society is racking up national debt at an exponential rate, which is inevitably going to lead to a global recession.
The argument you present here shows a level of ignorance of the reality of modern western economic systems that it's hard to know where to start.
Capitalism with very few regulation and laws that prevent cronyism is what works best. It fails hard when people give the government power over the market which Inevitably leads to corporations using the government as a pawn to tighten their grip over the market. - that's precisely the opposite of what really works, and it's what we're seeing right now.
See? I can do this too, so do you want to continue spewing your beliefs without backing them in any way shape or from? because it amounts to nothing.
Your insinuation that my argument is a refutation of an argument you didn't make in order to ridicule an argument you did apparently make thus making my argument a straw man is a straw man in and of itself. My argument is unrelated to you or anything you've said, it's a claim that may or may not be true in fact.
So do the rich do posses some object that can be passed around and allows them to generate wealth?
