The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD for the Spirit Paradise forum

[ajax18]

I don’t think that the poors are ripping off the rich, here.

I don't think you can claim that the rich don't pay their fair share. This is just federal income taxes. It doesn't even include state taxes.

But you can always prove me wrong and head out to the Arctic Circle in order to live off the land. Let me know when you’re ready to do that.

The huge number of people fleeing California for Texas and fleeing New York for Florida proves you wrong. Just as the huge number of leftists vacationing in Florida during the scamdemic in spite of Death Santis's deadly open for business policies allowing people to go to work and earn a living proved you wrong and dishonest about the danger of COVID.

[Res Ipsa]

Check out the chart Ben Shapiro puts up at 17:22 in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TFn5pp4YfE.

To your prior post, I don’t see that AI ‘leans left’, given Grok’s episode from last year where it was inserting Nazi references and phraseology into answers.

Regarding this post: For people paying virtually no tax, Ben says that they receive $68 in services. Woohooo!

At the second-lowest quintile, “for every dollar that you pay in, you get $6.29 back in services”, says Ben.

Folks in the top tier receive 0.04 for each dollar paid in, according to Ben.

So, if I paid $100 in federal taxes last year, I received $629 in ‘federal services’.

if I paid $15,725 in federal taxes last year, I received $629 in ‘federal services’.

I don’t think that the poors are ripping off the rich, here. Not at that level of ‘services’. And you still haven’t provided an actual source (AI isn’t a source) for your earlier figures that don’t jive with Ben’s here, nor have you defined what ‘services’ are. Nor are you considering tax credits (your mortgage interest deduction, likely a credit not being itemized on the returns of poorer folks, right?) nor tax-financed infrastructure, which you’ll likely derive more benefit from than poorer folks do, especially with respect to my earlier comment about how you covet the assets and resources of others so that you can benefit from the safety and comfort that those dollars - in the form of taxes - create.

But you can always prove me wrong and head out to the Arctic Circle in order to live off the land. Let me know when you’re ready to do that.

These numbers don’t add up. We all receive 830 billion in defense spending benefit. And each and everyone of us receives that entire benefit. I don’t think Shapiro has properly accounted for public goods. Which is what government is best at providing.

[canpakes]

These numbers don’t add up. We all receive 830 billion in defense spending benefit. And each and everyone of us receives that entire benefit. I don’t think Shapiro has properly accounted for public goods. Which is what government is best at providing.

Yes; the figures seem meaningless and manipulated, and as noted earlier I don’t see any accounting for public goods (what I called ‘expenditures’ in an earlier post). It’s silly to think that taxpayers in the top quintile are reaping only the equivalent of $1000 in benefits from ‘the government’.

[canpakes]

I don’t think that the poors are ripping off the rich, here.

I don't think you can claim that the rich don't pay their fair share. This is just federal income taxes. It doesn't even include state taxes.

You’ll have to point to where I offered any opinion about this if your argument is that ‘the rich’ (an undefined entity) pay ‘their fair share’ (an undefined quantity). But if you believe that they do, then no further tax cuts are required for ‘the rich’, given that what they’re paying is ‘fair’. However, this doesn’t rule out tax increases, especially given that you, as example, voted for the fellow who has now raised the national debt to its highest-ever level and has also demanded a $1.5 trillion defense (excuse me, I mean ‘WAR’) budget. So there should be no griping from you for needing more money to achieve what you’ve stated is a desired expenditure of yours … that being, financing more Middle East meddling and war. Get your checkbook ready (or maybe you’ll just kick this can into the lap of your kids).

But you can always prove me wrong and head out to the Arctic Circle in order to live off the land. Let me know when you’re ready to do that.

The huge number of people fleeing California for Texas and fleeing New York for Florida proves you wrong. Just as the huge number of leftists vacationing in Florida during the scamdemic in spite of Death Santis's deadly open for business policies allowing people to go to work and earn a living proved you wrong and dishonest about the danger of COVID.

Nope. Those folks moving to Texas or Florida prove me right. They’re looking for their soft, cushy, civilized safe haven fitted with all of the necessary infrastructure that only appropriate taxation could provide. Just as you were.

That moving trend seems to be dying, anyway. Florida has seen net migration into the state fall off dramatically in the last few years, with several Florida cities now in the top 20 national list of folks moving out. Similarly, Texas only saw a net inflow of about 67,000 folks during the 12 months between June 2024 and June 2025. This is its lowest level in decades. Interestingly, the state providing the largest number of new Texas residents was … Florida.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/30/us/t ... ensus.html

[ajax18]

To your prior post, I don’t see that AI ‘leans left’, given Grok’s episode from last year where it was inserting Nazi references and phraseology into answers.

Regarding this post: For people paying virtually no tax, Ben says that they receive $68 in services. Woohooo!

At the second-lowest quintile, “for every dollar that you pay in, you get $6.29 back in services”, says Ben.

Folks in the top tier receive 0.04 for each dollar paid in, according to Ben.

So, if I paid $100 in federal taxes last year, I received $629 in ‘federal services’.

if I paid $15,725 in federal taxes last year, I received $629 in ‘federal services’.

I don’t think that the poors are ripping off the rich, here. Not at that level of ‘services’. And you still haven’t provided an actual source (AI isn’t a source) for your earlier figures that don’t jive with Ben’s here, nor have you defined what ‘services’ are. Nor are you considering tax credits (your mortgage interest deduction, likely a credit not being itemized on the returns of poorer folks, right?) nor tax-financed infrastructure, which you’ll likely derive more benefit from than poorer folks do, especially with respect to my earlier comment about how you covet the assets and resources of others so that you can benefit from the safety and comfort that those dollars - in the form of taxes - create.

But you can always prove me wrong and head out to the Arctic Circle in order to live off the land. Let me know when you’re ready to do that.

These numbers don’t add up. We all receive 830 billion in defense spending benefit. And each and everyone of us receives that entire benefit. I don’t think Shapiro has properly accounted for public goods. Which is what government is best at providing.

The data is from the Congressional budget office.

[huckelberry]

Ajax, I think it makes sense to consider the most important benefit of a government is not giving people benefits but encouraging and being a foundation of an orderly and lawful, safe and healthy, society which is necessary for business to thrive and make money.

[canpakes]

These numbers don’t add up. We all receive 830 billion in defense spending benefit. And each and everyone of us receives that entire benefit. I don’t think Shapiro has properly accounted for public goods. Which is what government is best at providing.

The data is from the Congressional budget office.

What data is it? For what?

Figure that out first, because Ben seems to be telling a very different story than your AI, and a reference to the CBO is meaningless without knowing what is being referred to.

By the way, do you have your backcountry pack loaded up, yet?

[ajax18]

Ajax, I think it makes sense to consider the most important benefit of a government is not giving people benefits but encouraging and being a foundation of an orderly and lawful, safe and healthy, society which is necessary for business to thrive and make money.

Maybe the same reason businesses are leaving places like San Francisco that refuse to prosecute people for theft. As long as it's under $900 they decline to prosecute and you're not allowed to trespass them from your store or physically stop them from stealing. You can only lock everything up to further inconvenience paying customers.

[ajax18]

Ajax, I think it makes sense to consider the most important benefit of a government is not giving people benefits but encouraging and being a foundation of an orderly and lawful, safe and healthy, society which is necessary for business to thrive and make money.

I think you're right on this. Government shouldn't be in the business of wealth redistribution. It should be enforcing private property laws and national defense. If government can't or won't do those things, it's useless and needs to be overthrown.

[canpakes]

Ajax, I think it makes sense to consider the most important benefit of a government is not giving people benefits but encouraging and being a foundation of an orderly and lawful, safe and healthy, society which is necessary for business to thrive and make money.

Maybe the same reason businesses are leaving places like San Francisco that refuse to prosecute people for theft. As long as it's under $900 they decline to prosecute and you're not allowed to trespass them from your store or physically stop them from stealing. You can only lock everything up to further inconvenience paying customers.

The great ajax Gish Gallop is in session. : D

Declining to prosecute is at the discretion of the store ownership. It’s not what the law dictates. A Walgreens in San Francisco may take the exact same approach as one in Laredo if non-confrontation is the company policy, and neither may prosecute at the same value levels.

Fun fact: in California, shoplifting more than $950 in goods value moves you from the misdemeanor category and into the felony category. In Texas, that threshold is much higher, at $2500, with some jurisdiction exceptions at $1500 and in the case of organized theft incidents.

Anyhow, how are your gas prices this week? Did shoplifters in SanFran make you pay 30% more to fill your tank than when you did two weeks ago, or was it Trump that did that?

(Hint: it was Trump.)