@moffintosh
You forgot about government contracts...
@LukeAlmighty Irrelevant, that's just the client
@moffintosh
Client buys services for his money.
Politicians buy services for your money.
This shouldn't be a hard concept even for a commie.
@moffintosh
BTW, thus is a serious one. I can look over other disagreements, but this one is critical.
You (a worker) made 500 dollars through hard work.
I (A politician), decide, that it is in your best interest, if I eat well, So I order a huge dinner in value of 100, from my brother, and I pay him 300 dollars straight from your earnings.
What part of this was ok? How is this comparable from you using your money to get something for yourself?
@moffintosh
I asked you a serious question, and your anwser is:
> Because they steal from a "pool of resources"
Yes. They steal from everyone. That makes it even less fair. I ilustrated an example, where the taxed population was 1, because I wanted to simplify it. 🤦♂️
> can only be spent via budget allocations
Yes... That is called a magic tric. Do you seriously think your dad stole your nose? The mere fact, that they spend your money in a longer process doesn't mean it didn't happen.
> thus bound to their electorate
They provide NOTHING to me. They cannot even make sure to keep the fucking inflation down. They instead spend some of the money on campaigns designed to hurt me through DEI programs. So yes, it would be more accurate to say, that they stole my money to buy an ammo to shoot me with.
I cannot believe you have actually written something so incoherent.
Also:
@LukeAlmighty
> Yes. They steal from everyone. That makes it even less fair. I ilustrated an example, where the taxed population was 1, because I wanted to simplify it. 🤦♂️
Because of capital's influence over the state.
> Yes... That is called a magic tric. Do you seriously think your dad stole your nose? The mere fact, that they spend your money in a longer process doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I'm not even sure what' you're trying to point to here. Of course money will be spent from the pool of resources, and those ought to be to the benefit of the community, which, with capital around, isn't the case.
> thus bound to their electorate
> They provide NOTHING to me. They cannot even make sure to keep the fucking inflation down.
Roads, police, sewerage, military defense, welfare as an "insurance" to those who are showed into the reserve army of labour, cleaning of public land, emergency services and so on. Could more of that be directed to the public good? Of course yes, but the reason that doesn't happen is due to capital's influnce over society, not because for some magic reason politicians are completely different from elected member of private company boards.
> They instead spend some of the money on campaigns designed to hurt me through DEI programs. So yes, it would be more accurate to say, that they stole my money to buy an ammo to shoot me with.
Last time I checked you don't live in america
@LukeAlmighty
A) I didn't make 500 dollars via work, I produced more than that value, but the owner curtails a large chunk of it (surplus value) and keeps it as profit.
If I didn't make him more value than the wage he pays me he wouldn't have a profit, or reason to hire me.
With that said 300 is only minor part of the total value I made, and is to bs put in a pool of resources whose objective is to serve the community as whole (because it's more efficient than each paying their own, see healthcare Italy vs US).
Politicians aren't unlike board members, one elected by the populace, one by the investors, and thus bound to their electorate. The issue is that politics are influenced by capital (lobby, elector campaigns, etc...), as the wealthy have an interest to expand their markets, limiting public services and route as much money as they can towards their pockets.
Your example is also a bad one because my momey goes to the public pool of money, not directly to the pockets of someone, and can only be spent via budget allocations et all.