Are socialists against taxes? Without taxes, who would pay for healthcare, take care of the disabled, maintain the military, etc? All good things that would not be possible without a government to organize it and taxes to pay for it,
Are socialists against taxes? Without taxes, who would pay for healthcare, take care of the disabled...
Socialists aren't, as they love thier big daddy government.
Us communists, however, prefer a moneyless system with no centralized government, where everyone takes care of their own and neighboring communities.
Without the concept of money, you lose the concept of payment. Everything is financially free, you just have to work for it.
No taxes no rent no debt
But if everyone just takes care of "their own" there will inevitably be those who fall through the cracks with no one to help them. With some sort of government these people wouldn't have to suffer just because people can't be arsed to help them out.
So what happens when you need a medical specialist half a continent away?
The amount would be greatly reduced compared to the millions that fall through the cracks now. Plus, all the forgotten person would have to do is complain, and they would be taken care of.
If their community could not take care of them, then arrangements would be made to transfer him to a community that could and would if they so desired it.
Transportation, networking and communication will still exist, you just won't have to finance it.
read a fucking book retard
Lurk a little longer, soon you'll get that spooky socdem nonsense out of your system.
a) who would finance it/how would they be built and maintained?
b) what do you do when the medical specialist has no reason to help you because you aren't part of his community?
How can you be so sure? Perhaps the person holds unpopular opinions and nobody wants to help him. It is essentially relying on the goodwill of other people will will absolutely fall short at some point. Compared to that, the system no where taxes make sure that _everyone_ has healthcare is much superior (in non-America developed countries). That sounds like the republican argument that the government shouldn't take care of healthcare or foreign aid/charity because it should be up to the people to donate voluntarily. The problem with that view is that people often don't want to help others and so innocent people suffer through no fault of their own.
Nobody would finance it, money and markets won't exist. Communism is about cooperation, not competition. It'd be built and maintained the same way it has been, but out of helpfulness, not a desire for profit.
The very sensibilites of man will be changed by the difference in environment. No longer is there a struggle to compete, but instead a desire to cooperate, because a stronger world is a stronger individual.
As I said, the ideals people hold will become radically different. The idea of sharing and helpfulness will become intrinsic, because otherwise society would collapse and everyone would starve. A refusal to help is a slippery slope towards tribalism, competition, war and the dissolution of a communal society.
Nobody is incentivized to help in the current format of society, which is built on competition and a need to raise monetary profit to survive. We're throwing all that out and redesigning the world, and when we're done you will see that humanity, free of the system that enforces a self-centered worldview to survive, will raise all the downtrodden up to a better way of life, because doing so helps everyone, including themselves.
Socialists aren't against taxes.
Even with moneyless socialism you need to delegate some part of the produced commodities or the labour towards building capital goods which aren't paid to the workers in direct salary, but rather as an addition to the collective property.
The other things also apply of course.
I dont like people who throw idealism around and assume people will do shit out of the goodness of their heart or that socialism will be moneyless from the getgo. Socialism will have taxes. Talking about taxes in communism isnt that usefull as its a system radically different from what we have today. Communism, for all intends and purposed, is almost post-scarcity is most of its aspects, so a tax in the sense of using part of societies productive ability to make collective property or take care of the disabled, and not, personal property, is not felt that hard.
Please dont listen too much to the "people will be best of friends" kind of people, because until we reach a higher stage in economic development where scarcity doesnt exist for most things, and we've had time to acclimatise to the change in our way of life, we will still need to enforce some kind of order to prevent freeriders and take care of the people who suffer needlessly.
Read a fucking book
Only during the socialist stage. USSR had a big welfare State.
How can you tax something that has no money?
Stop being autistic. He said socialism, not communism.
all governments, even the most progressive, have just crafted different policies that try to manage the system of capital accumulation better
they really just exists to manage inflation rates, governments could finance their spending by other means
buying and selling to buy and sell more ad infinitum is the root of all crises
All those institutions ideally shouldn't even exist. Some system of social accounting in some labour unit that fully take into account externalities is needed to replace money and the oppressive organs of government.
I hate this meme, care to explain why you think that? "Not hyperinflating by printing money" is not the same as "managing inflation rates", its just not fucking up. Unless you mean something else, it seems to me that statement is so neck deep in abstract capitalist ideology that it becomes fucky.
If money is the temporary storage of labour time then the government would have to allocate some part of the labour towards things other than consumer goods/wages. Whether this happens in the form of printing money or collecting a certain % of the money every transaction/month doesn't really matter. The latter is more practical for the population though, as it ensures prices don't change drastically and savings do not devalue, thus ensuring people will not try to store their wealth in other commodities or currencies.
And taxes also allow for progressive tax, rather than flattax.
Under capitalism, taxes and welfare can be used to somewhat deal with the inequalities it naturally produces. It would be preferable, even in a capitalist system, if the workers could simply own their businesses and not unnecessarily give some random wanker 99% of the profit, but when that is not the case I'd prefer that the wanker gets taxed and have some of that money used to subsidize the workers who can't afford healthcare or food.
Didn't mean to reply
Tax policy effects how money is being spent and circulating so it always has some effect on prices and what's being bought and produced.
The state could finance its expenditures by printing and spending more money into circulation instead of borrowing back money at interest or taxing but that would have some sort of inflationary effect probably and those who profit from lending money to the state for a return wouldn't like it. Also state run enterprises could generate revenue for the state without taxation but that would step on the feet of powerful private interests.
Why not increase taxes (deflationary) and print money (inflationary) in a way that they both cancel each other out?
You're new here, aren't you?
you only have taxes if there's private production (aka capitalism)
I mean you could. That can't work if you want large-national scale projects (most likely, I mean with modern communications there isn't necessarily anything stopping coordination between communities)
I just don't see large scale exchange of goods and resources happening in that system without trade or socialist production (aka democratic and organized by the state)
It seems to me it is you who is submerged in capitalist ideology. The pro-capitalists usually argue autistically in a way about the state as it were a single household:
This reasoning fails basic math. A state that issues its own currency can put more of it into circulation than it takes out by taxes, unlike a household that uses this currency. After it finally got it through their thick skulls that for the state overspending doesn't imply debt, the pro-capitalists then reply:
And this doesn't follow either. It depends on what the unemployment level is and what sorts of projects the state finances.