Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

taxes were meant to ensure that our society could function. zero tax means law enforcement would be 100% privatized and would there for be law unto itself. The military would be non existent in terms of national defense so any neighboring country would just be able to walk into your country and place their flag and rape everybody. No education would be available either so we would be set back about 500 years, maybe more.

As soon as it gets too high there is a good chance your country will be much less efficient and will start over spending in certain areas and that the government would be interfering with other people's personal lives too much, causing complicated problems that call for more solutions (and more taxes)

But I think one of the biggest reasons why everything is getting out of control is the baby boom and over population. Only so much of this planet to go around, and unfortunately this is also another complicated problem that can't be solved easily.

---

We are taxed enough already, the federal income tax is unconstitutional and the supreme court acknowledges it as they do not pay any income tax at all, and the entire taxation system is made to racketeer the citizens.

http://www.paynoincometax.com/federalmaf ia.htm

---

At 11/17/11 03:41 PM, WallofYawn wrote: Why doesn't anyone want to pay taxes? I understand being taxed to death is no good, but taxes serve a very pivotal role. Taxes pay for roads to be built, for water treatment facilities, for bridges, infrastructure, education, etc.

First, Do you pay Taxes?
Second, Do you know **specifically** what a Government spends it funds on, what the results are, and whether or not the things you think of could not be provided better by any other means?

Those are two things for you to think about before you ask this question, now to actually answer the question.

Now I can't speak for every angry Taxpayer, I don't actually pay taxes myself. But I can make an educated guess as to why they are the way they are. [That is, if you are *ACTUALLY* interested in why they are upset, as opposed to simply making a thread about why you think people shouldn't be upset about paying taxes and the thread title was simply misnamed]

1. First and foremost, Taxes are involuntary. I.e. People are extorted to pay for them. Almost everyone understands this at a visceral level. Nobody likes to do things that other people compel them to do. No one likes to be forced to have sex with another person, no one likes to be forced to convert to a religion they don't believe in, etc.

2. Taxes for an average American can amount to quite a bit, especially when you compare them with other things people need to spend money on. [clothing, food, energy, health care, etc.] While Federal Income taxes for most Americans may have fallen slightly, Taxation in other forms has gone up considerably. You can argue that what our wise overlords spend their money on is essential [I would argue that most of it is wasted, and the rest of it could be provided more cheaply and more equitably on a total market] But telling this to people begs the question of why there were so few 'essential' needs of Governments in times past.

3. If there are net benefits to State control and direction of resources through taxation, no individual taxpayer can perceive them. This might be difficult to understand, but consider what I said above about you knowing what the Federal Government spends its money on.

When you buy a car, the product you get in return is visible and you can decide fairly easily whether or not the purchase was worth it. Most people have no clue what the effect of State programs are and whether or not they actually benefit you. In my opinion, the belief that most of what the government spends its money on as being not worth the cost is a more rational default assumption if you are not well versed in what is sometimes called 'fiscal policy'.

It strikes me as far more rational than saying "I don't know who specifically gets the money, who specifically administers the programs, I don't know specifically what the money is spent on, and I don't have any direct control over any of these matters, therefore I can reasonably assume the money is spent towards the general welfare"

And whatever people's interaction with the Government is, they were certainly be most reminded of those moments which are the least pleasant. I'm talking about Police Encounters, if you're a business owner, OSHA, a doctor, medicare fraud litigators, if you are a frequent flier, the TSA, if you are a farmer, the FDA.

Taxing on shit that should be held as private programs, is stupid, tho. I think we need to get rid of sales tax, and property tax, we need to cut funding to/abolish programs we don't use, or which are not important.

Use the extra money to fund education programs, health care, welfare programs, and infrastructure.

Ugh... a Few things.

1. You should know that Property Taxes fund most so-called "Education" programs, at least on a state-local level.
2. There is no "We"
3. There is no Agreement on what programs are worth while and which ones are not, and because whoever wins the Elections gets to decide what other people's resources get used for, it should not surprise anyone that Politics has the good will of a Cold War, because it *is* a Cold War. I also have no idea what the word private program means. When you invent a word you should probably define it, and even when you don't invent words, in political-economy it's wise to define every word which there might be some confusion over, even if you didn't invent it yourself.

However, here's where people differ from me, I believe we should raise taxes on the wealthy.
A lot of the wealthy aren't paying their fair share. They skim off the top, find loopholes, or don't claim all their taxes. This needs to end.

And a lot of multi millionaires and billionaires think the same thing. I'm curious to know what you think their reasons are for not heading over to treasury.gov and donate, to put their money where their mouth is.

Anyway, your implicitly violent opinion about how other people's resources should be used isn't relevant to why people are angry about paying taxes.

Tell me something else. What If I told you that it was my *opinion* that you and everyone in your age group [I am guessing that you probably are probably a young adult or younger] should be conscripted into the army to fight "For the Good of our Nation", [I.E. to go fight and possibly die in some foreign land for an unclear reason] . Now I don't know what you're opinion of US Foreign Policy is, but I am guessing you would PROBABLY be resentful of such a thing and you would probably become more vocal in your resentment if people took this proposal seriously.

Now if you wanted to avoid conscription you would be left with two alternatives. Either convince people that the CAUSE that the US Military is fighting is a bad one. [Namely, your service in the army would be of benefit to no one good because the army's mission is inherently corrupt] Or make a case that conscription is immoral regardless of the pretext.

In other words, you could either say "I'm not going to die just to line the pockets of oil companies." or "You have no right to enslave me for any reason"

The former argument is much more difficult to make than the latter, it requires more research and it is as difficult to prove beyond all reasonable doubt as it is easy for someone to use small pieces of evidence to argue against it.

The latter argument, by contrast, is a moral argument. It is more effective both by and against people of lower intelligence, and that is why it is more frequently employed.

I can likewise argument that Taxation is wrong regardless of the pretext, or argue that Taxation is undesirable because what the money is being spent on is of net negative value. Hence the analogy.

I kind of look funny at the people who say,

Yes. And much of the founding fathers were hypocrites and their actions do not lend any credibility to their name.

FYI, That tax was primarily levied upon farmers and was primarily benefiting not the Government but wealthy friends of Alexander Hamilton who lent the Continentals money to finance the war. Just as most government spending tends to benefit bankers.

So, why all the hating of taxes? Are they not a necessary evil, much like government itself?(in b4 dumb anarchists start preaching to the choir)

There are only two dumb anarchists on the NG politics BBS, When I make responses I never use insinuations; I try to be direct. You ought to do the same.

At any rate, you never made a utilitarian case for State control of resources [either in part or in whole] You simply asserted that such things are good, so It is you who is preaching to the choir.

---

people should be taxed on consumption of resources, not income tax. a polices like that would push people to use less, and make more

---

Op, you can tax all you want to, but no amount of logical tax income is going to overcome overspending (Deficit Spending). If you earn less than you spend, you run out of money. I'm sure you can agree with that.

Our government establishes loans with other countries to pay them back for borrowing money. These debts have been continuously rising for the past 12 years. This extravagant spending started during George W. Bush's first term. It then doubled his second term and has maintained the same amount under Barack Obama. Obama has no plans to discontinue this track either.

---

At 11/19/11 05:09 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 11/19/11 02:48 AM, WallofYawn wrote:

But my point was that we can't have this macho facade of "being the best" country with the "highest standards of living" and then cut health care, social security, education, and tax the shit out of small businesses.

Most of those are examples of overinvested programs. Past a certain point, the more money that's allocated, the less each dollar accomplishes. A good healthcare system is necessary to keep a healthy, productive labor force, but to ensure that everyone, everywhere, can attain the highest conceivable level of health is insanely expensive. The greatest killers in this country stem from decades-long overindulgence and vice (heart disease, lung, skin, liver cancers). Increasing hospital funding isn't going to change that.

Alright, I understand that, and agree. Maybe we can't guarantee that everyone everywhere has the best health, and I never said we could. We neither have the wealth, manpower, or technology to accomplish that.

But what do you think about free, universal health care? It's been successful in other countries, why not the US?

Social security should be cut by changing eligibility requirements. The program was originally intended to keep the elderly from desitution, but for many people it's become just another IRA. If a retired person lives by himself, has a decent retirement account, and receives a pension, there's no reason why he "needs" social security if all it's doing is pushing him past the median income. How prevalent this is, I couldn't say; total income of SS recipients isn't easy to find.

Ok, I understand this. I myself tried to get SS, because I was diagnosed with autism as a child. I took a test and saw a psychologist, who asked me questions about history, and such. I answered them all correctly, and he deemed me normal, and that I didn't qualify for SS.

There are lots who try to cheat to get SS, and I agree that it should only be for those who need it, just like welfare. Getting rid of SS, tho, is not a bright idea. Also, AARP pretty much guarantees that any politician who tries to cut SS for the elderly, will be met with the utmost opposition. AARP is BIG.

I agree; part of that is keeping taxes as low as possible.

Again, I never said we should increase taxes, people are putting words in my mouth. I said we need to cut what we don't need, or what we're paying into the most, without hurting middle class people who rely on medicare, health care, or SS. Only extra taxes I suggested, was maybe a tax on millionaires. You can cut taxes for everyone else. In fact, you can toss out property and sales tax altogether, because we don't need them.

Stop right there. The government doesn't "do" anything to bring prosperity. People create prosperity, for themselves and society.

But the government provides the funding for programs that help the prosperity of our nation. So, in a way, they do, just indirectly.

The government is little more than a mediator to guard against illegal activity and the occasional negative externality.

If that were all the Government did, this would be a Libertarian nation, but it's not.

Social security, medicaid, etc, these are nothing more than socialist, though necessary, programs that take from one group and give to another.

Well, at least someone is saying the truth. These are Socialist ideas, but a little Socialism is good. I'm a moderate Socialist myself. I am anti-marxist, mind you, but I think moderate Socialism is necessary, and right, and it can help to keep government and business in check, and from growing too powerful.

They are a problem waiting to be solved by the private market, not a foundation for aggressive redistribution of wealth.

The private market cannot solve everything, and I think relying too heavily on the market is a bad idea. The market shouldn't be the only thing that dictates. There has to be a balance. I am a supporter of lessaiz faire, or free market, but a free market must be regulated. A free market without regulation is like a Society without laws or government. It is subject to chaos and anarchy.

---

At 11/20/11 12:54 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

First, Do you pay Taxes?

Yes, I pay SS, Medicade, and disability insurance taxes. I had nearly 14 dollars taken out of my last check, which was 159 dollars. No fed. income tax was taken out.(dunno why) I don't own property, car, or anything, so I only pay taxes out of my work check. That's nearly 25 dollars a month, which is a lot. I'm not complaining, but that's a lot of taxes. I could do with less, admittedly.

Second, Do you know **specifically** what a Government spends it funds on, what the results are, and whether or not the things you think of could not be provided better by any other means?

Admittedly, no. I know that infrastructure has been pretty low on the list in recent years, tho.(unless the media has been lying to me)

Now I can't speak for every angry Taxpayer, I don't actually pay taxes myself. But I can make an educated guess as to why they are the way they are. [That is, if you are *ACTUALLY* interested in why they are upset, as opposed to simply making a thread about why you think people shouldn't be upset about paying taxes and the thread title was simply misnamed]

No, I'm curious.

1. First and foremost, Taxes are involuntary. I.e. People are extorted to pay for them. Almost everyone understands this at a visceral level. Nobody likes to do things that other people compel them to do. No one likes to be forced to have sex with another person, no one likes to be forced to convert to a religion they don't believe in, etc.

But we consent to it, because if we don't, we'll be imprisoned, and the IRS will claim our shit. Yea, I understand it's involuntary.

2. Taxes for an average American can amount to quite a bit, especially when you compare them with other things people need to spend money on. [clothing, food, energy, health care, etc.] While Federal Income taxes for most Americans may have fallen slightly, Taxation in other forms has gone up considerably. You can argue that what our wise overlords spend their money on is essential [I would argue that most of it is wasted, and the rest of it could be provided more cheaply and more equitably on a total market] But telling this to people begs the question of why there were so few 'essential' needs of Governments in times past.

Yea, I admit, most of my life I got payed in cash, at the carnival, without having to pay taxes, or have any taken out. Now that I have gotten a regular job, with a (semi) steady income, I can see how much taxes are taken out. A lot, and I don't see those taxes back either, apparently.

3. If there are net benefits to State control and direction of resources through taxation, no individual taxpayer can perceive them. This might be difficult to understand, but consider what I said above about you knowing what the Federal Government spends its money on.

So, in other words, no one knows for sure where their tax money is going? Well, that sucks. I'd like to know, myself.

When you buy a car, the product you get in return is visible and you can decide fairly easily whether or not the purchase was worth it. Most people have no clue what the effect of State programs are and whether or not they actually benefit you. In my opinion, the belief that most of what the government spends its money on as being not worth the cost is a more rational default assumption if you are not well versed in what is sometimes called 'fiscal policy'.

Yea, and I agree that the Gov. is spending it's money unwisely. That's why we need to cut programs that we know serve no benefit. We need to put in policies that will allow our tax payer dollars to be put to better use. Admittedly, I am not well versed in fiscal policy. I think we need to be very frugal, tho, because we're already in as much debt as we can handle.

It strikes me as far more rational than saying "I don't know who specifically gets the money, who specifically administers the programs, I don't know specifically what the money is spent on, and I don't have any direct control over any of these matters, therefore I can reasonably assume the money is spent towards the general welfare"

Obviously it is not. Maybe it was at first, but with all the new laws, programs, and such, it's obvious that not all of the money is spent for those purposes. It can't be so. So, yea, the logical conclusion is that not all of what we'd like our taxes to be spent on, is what they are spent on.

And whatever people's interaction with the Government is, they were certainly be most reminded of those moments which are the least pleasant. I'm talking about Police Encounters, if you're a business owner, OSHA, a doctor, medicare fraud litigators, if you are a frequent flier, the TSA, if you are a farmer, the FDA.

Yea, everyone has to answer to someone. I think there is far too much coercion in this country. We have an agency for policing just about everything.

Ugh... a Few things.

1. You should know that Property Taxes fund most so-called "Education" programs, at least on a state-local level.

Wow, really? Well, that kind of funny, because I think we need to get rid of property taxes.

2. There is no "We"

Fair enough. The government then.

3. There is no Agreement on what programs are worth while and which ones are not, and because whoever wins the Elections gets to decide what other people's resources get used for, it should not surprise anyone that Politics has the good will of a Cold War, because it *is* a Cold War. I also have no idea what the word private program means. When you invent a word you should probably define it, and even when you don't invent words, in political-economy it's wise to define every word which there might be some confusion over, even if you didn't invent it yourself.

So, the only control we have, is over who gets into office, who supports our views on what programs we support? Makes sense. And maybe we don't even have control over that.

Second, when I say private, I mean shit that isn't in the public domain, or not for supporting the common good, or the common interests. Basically, any program that would be better off funding itself, than having the government fund it.

And a lot of multi millionaires and billionaires think the same thing. I'm curious to know what you think their reasons are for not heading over to treasury.gov and donate, to put their money where their mouth is.

Because they don't want to endorse them? Is that it? If they get taxed, then no one says anything. But if they send a check, they're endorsing what the government is doing. That's my reasoning, but in all honesty, I can't really say either way.

Tell me something else. What If I told you that it was my *opinion* that you and everyone in your age group [I am guessing that you probably are probably a young adult or younger] should be conscripted into the army to fight "For the Good of our Nation", [I.E. to go fight and possibly die in some foreign land for an unclear reason] . Now I don't know what you're opinion of US Foreign Policy is, but I am guessing you would PROBABLY be resentful of such a thing and you would probably become more vocal in your resentment if people took this proposal seriously.

I am 20 yrs. old, and yea, I am against a draft, and I would be pretty resentful.

As for your other points, which I can't fit in my post to respond individually to each of them:

Yes, morals and ethics are far easier to argue than facts and analysis, because everyone can understand them, and put them into context. This is how Fundamentalists are able to argue against Evolution, despite facts and observational analyses.

I agree that the founding fathers were hypocrites. Jefferson, for example, was against slavery, but owned slaves himself, and there are many more examples.

I didn't know that about Hamilton, but hey, you learn something new everyday.

There are only two dumb anarchists on the NG politics BBS, When I make responses I never use insinuations; I try to be direct. You ought to do the same.

Ok, fair enough, I was generalizing a bit, I admit, and I'll try not to do so in the future.

---

At 11/21/11 12:52 AM, WallofYawn wrote: But what do you think about free, universal health care? It's been successful in other countries, why not the US?

Sorry to butt into the conversation. These countries you speak of, though, how are they doing on an economic standpoint? (Switzerland is excluded from this list. They are in control of so much money due to banks, they can virtually provide the country with anything.)

France, for instance: Claimed to be on the best universal health care systems in the world. Albeit, I wouldn't say it's the most economically sound nation in all of Europe. The same applies for the infamous Greece, Portugal, Spain, and even Germany has gone slightly downhill due to the influx of certain immigrants.

Don't get me wrong, I think universal health care is a fantastic idea. My main qualm with it is that there needs to be strictly enforced limits on it.

---

At 11/22/11 01:24 AM, HooglyBoogly wrote:
Sorry to butt into the conversation. These countries you speak of, though, how are they doing on an economic standpoint? (Switzerland is excluded from this list. They are in control of so much money due to banks, they can virtually provide the country with anything.)

France, for instance: Claimed to be on the best universal health care systems in the world. Albeit, I wouldn't say it's the most economically sound nation in all of Europe. The same applies for the infamous Greece, Portugal, Spain, and even Germany has gone slightly downhill due to the influx of certain immigrants.

Don't get me wrong, I think universal health care is a fantastic idea. My main qualm with it is that there needs to be strictly enforced limits on it.

there is a difference between government provided healthcare and being forced to buy insurance. It leads me to believe that the Republican party is the bank and oil company party and the Democrats are the bank and insurance company party.

We in Canada have long line ups but they are some what exaggerated, and could be solved (or at least, cut down to with in reason) if the government cleaned up some of it's waste in other areas, but our current prime minister pretty much promises to make those areas worse instead.

---

At 11/22/11 02:17 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote:
the Republican party is the bank and oil company party and the Democrats are the bank and insurance company party.

Yea, that sounds about right actually...

---

At 11/21/11 01:32 AM, WallofYawn wrote:

Yes

You don't earn nearly enough per year to hit with the Federal Income Tax, no offense. Though i am surprised that someone who earns roughly 160 dollars per week still has 10% of his earnings confiscated by the Government. Try to imagine now that you are a median or higher income earner. Assuming you work every month, it's roughly 800 dollars per week. Depending on what state you live in, you might see a third of your money go to uncle Sam, supposedly to your benefit. That's 13,000 dollars per year in taxes, probably more than you earn in a year.

Admittedly, no.

Low *compared to what [or when]* is probably a better question. But this question is just intended to get you to think about your own statements before I address them directly. I'm not hostile to the idea of government infrastructure spending BECAUSE I think US infrastructure is good. I'm hostile to the idea of infrastructure spending, especially when justified for economic growth reasons, because I reason that infrastructure is not some homogeneous thing. The choice of where to build is the difference between a good investment and a useless political monument. I simply lack the confidence that politicians are willing or capable to make this distinction.

But we consent to it, because if we don't, we'll be imprisoned, and the IRS will claim our shit. Yea, I understand it's involuntary.

That's not consensual. If I tell you before hand that if you refuse to to perform sexual services for me, I'll throw you in a cage in my basement and subject you to psychological torture for a definite interval of time, is your choice consensual?

Now what is and what is not a voluntary choice is not carved in stone, I am aware of this. But all modern standards of acceptable private behavior, what the IRS does is not consensual.

You can argue that it is consensual because people agree to live in the country, but then there's a bit of circular logic being employed. The Government has powers over control of property over a territory because we consent to them doing so, but the proof of our consent is in the fact that we can 'love it or leave it', But this argument assumes legitimate government authority, which assumes consent, and so on and so forth.

Yea, I admit,

I usually don't like anecdotes, but introspection is always good.

So, in other words, no one knows for sure where their tax money is going?

You can probably find out, but to have a thorough grasp of what the money is spent on, for an agency as huge as the USFG, would take years to know thoroughly. [Just like studying law does] Yet, like law, the fiscal structure of Washington changes yearly.

Its not impossible to learn, but it takes more time and willpower than the average American has time for. This is why the average American's understanding of their government is more metaphorical and anecdotal.

Yea, and I agree that the Gov. is spending it's money unwisely.

That's just the thing. Washington politicians have no incentive to care about the economic benefits of the program. In fact, they usually have little way of knowing what the benefits are even if they exist. They don't spend according to abstract notions of the common good [Though they'll pay lipservice to it] They spend according to which groups are most critical to their reelection. Usually these groups are concentrated and narrowly focused, occasionally they'll be 'large' groups like the AARP.

The imperceptibility comes from two factors, one, the fact that economic benefits may not materialize within 2 years [the average congressional termlimit] Two, the fact that economic growth cannot weigh the benefits of a single program on the economy, only the effect of every program in general. The other reason comes from a lack of pricing. We can usually tell whether the invention of an apple product is 'beneficial' or not, based on how willing people are to trade their own resources [Money when properly maintained isn't just some given, it serves as a proxy for the productive capacities of individuals, which in turn is decided by the assessment of others of the value of their services and so on and so forth] in exchange for that product. Politics only permits limited election of government managers, it does not allow voting on individual programs and more importantly it does not permit voting on these programs with ones own resources.

You can think of every private endeavor as a kind of referendum or program in proposal. This includes private infrastructure. If people are willing to pay for it, those indivduals must perceive some benefit from having that program. In this way, we have at least an indication that the program is benefiting people.

There are always negative externalities, things like pollution which could harm people not involved in the transaction. I can deal with those, but only if you have specific objections to the model i am proposing here.

So in a nutshell. Saying 'We need politicians to spend money more responsibly' just begs the question of 1. Why they should ever care 2. How can they be MADE to care if they aren't being made to care already 3. How anyone even knows a government program is good or not, because every program that exists currently is defended as being essential. And we both know this third one is true from common experience.

Obviously it is not. Maybe it was at first, but with all the new laws, programs, and such, it's obvious that not all of the money is spent for those purposes. It can't be so. So, yea, the logical conclusion is that not all of what we'd like our taxes to be spent on, is what they are spent on.

The issue is whether that 'waste' is worth the 'benefit', if there exists some, less wasteful alternative. The idea NOT about whether there is SOME benefit, but whether or not there is a net benefit, net benefits are really all that matter.

Continued on my next post.

---

Yea, everyone has to answer to someone. I think there is far too much coercion in this country. We have an agency for policing just about everything.

No offense, I don't think you're not going to improve matters by advocating people surrender more of their stuff to these agencies. Just like Occupy Wallstreet is amusing for wanting to fill the same government coffers that fund the police officers that they are so very fond of.

Wow, really? Well, that kind of funny, because I think we need to get rid of property taxes.

Yes. It's actually incredible anti-egalitarian. Wealthier neighborhoods have higher property taxes, and usually have better schools. Now in my opinion, the amount of money a parent spends on a child's education has much less an effect on the actual performance of that child than upbringing and genetics [IQ that is] But that's another topic entirely.

2. There is no "We"

Fair enough. The government then.

3. There is no Agreement on what programs are worth while and which ones are not, and

So, the only control we have, is over who gets into office, who supports our views on what programs we support? Makes sense. And maybe we don't even have control over that.

I don't think most people do, at least not at a deep level. The best example of this is Obama's flipflop on foreign policy and civil liberties issues.

But there's also an extent to which voters DO get what they want, and most people get harmed from their voting. The best example of this is the elderly and SS/medicare. They naturally fight to prevent cuts to their benefits, and for the most part their efforts have been successful. In spite of the fact that senior citizens are several times wealthier on average than a young start up worker [such as yourself] You are forced to pay taxes for their supposed benefit, and the program is structured in such a way that even if it is made fiscally solvent, young Americans are screwed because they'll end up paying more taxes to the old than they'll receive in benefits. And I doubt such a rosy scenario will even occur [i.e. you will never live to see a social security or medicare check, in spite of paying for them]

Is taxing the working poor to pay for the non-working rich a policy popular with the actual majority of americans? Perhaps, but it would be far less so if people understood the issues and if young people chose to get involved. But neither of those things can happen. What reason does any single person have to waste an hour of their day doing something that will have almost no chance of affecting the outcome of an election? What reason does any old person have to accept the fact that unless they compromise on entitlements, Young people will probably leave the country entirely under the burden of taxation? Even if *THEY* agree to accept cuts, what reason do they have to expect that the other countless interest groups that are also on the welfare or corporate welfare dole will also agree to cuts? None whatsoever.

We're living in a political prisoners dilemma, everyone is incentivized to do that which ultimately hangs them in the end.

Second, when I say private,

Well I don't agree with the premise that just because something is 'for the common good', it cannot, or should not, be funded privately. But I understand what you mean.

Because they don't want to endorse them?

Well it was somewhat of a rhetorical question. Because I don't know what the reason is either. I suspect that warren buffet and George Soros might deep down realize that even if the rich 'should be paying more to benefit society' - The present fiscal structure of our government would render such contributions the equivalent of taking ones money and lighting it on fire. But that is my guess, either that, or they are simply hypocrites.

I am 20 yrs. old, and yea, I am against a draft, and I would be pretty resentful.

I can imagine. I'm 19 and conscription would probably be it for me. If they tried I would move to singapore.

I have nothing else to say with respect to your last statements. I can appreciate the fact that your reply was in good faith. I have discussions with other people here and they get very nasty very quickly.

---

At 11/22/11 09:38 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 11/21/11 01:32 AM, WallofYawn wrote:

Yes

You don't earn nearly enough per year to hit with the Federal Income Tax, no offense. Though i am surprised that someone who earns roughly 160 dollars per week still has 10% of his earnings confiscated by the Government. Try to imagine now that you are a median or higher income earner. Assuming you work every month, it's roughly 800 dollars per week. Depending on what state you live in, you might see a third of your money go to uncle Sam, supposedly to your benefit. That's 13,000 dollars per year in taxes, probably more than you earn in a year.

Actually, it was 160 after two weeks, because I have very few hours/days starting out, which blows chunks.

And jesus, $13,000, that blows.

Low *compared to what [or when]* is probably a better question. But this question is just intended to get you to think about your own statements before I address them directly. I'm not hostile to the idea of government infrastructure spending BECAUSE I think US infrastructure is good. I'm hostile to the idea of infrastructure spending, especially when justified for economic growth reasons, because I reason that infrastructure is not some homogeneous thing. The choice of where to build is the difference between a good investment and a useless political monument. I simply lack the confidence that politicians are willing or capable to make this distinction.

I see what you mean now. We know it goes to infrastructure, but we don't know how much goes to infrastructure, or where/what infrastructure is being worked on. I'd gather, tho, that if they had to choose, they'd provide infrastructure spending to areas most in need. But then again, I don't know exactly.

That's not consensual. If I tell you before hand that if you refuse to to perform sexual services for me, I'll throw you in a cage in my basement and subject you to psychological torture for a definite interval of time, is your choice consensual?

No, but taxes have the illusion of consent. My point was, tho, that if everyone quit paying taxes, they'd try and convince us to do so, and we might consent, because no roads would be built, and education/health care would suck. It's not like they can imprison ALL of us.

Now what is and what is not a voluntary choice is not carved in stone, I am aware of this. But all modern standards of acceptable private behavior, what the IRS does is not consensual.

No, no it's not. The IRS comes and claims your shit, with or without your consent.

You can argue that it is consensual because people agree to live in the country, but then there's a bit of circular logic being employed. The Government has powers over control of property over a territory because we consent to them doing so, but the proof of our consent is in the fact that we can 'love it or leave it', But this argument assumes legitimate government authority, which assumes consent, and so on and so forth.

So, in other words, it's a straw man argument. A fallacy, and confusion. I see.

You can probably find out, but to have a thorough grasp of what the money is spent on, for an agency as huge as the USFG, would take years to know thoroughly. [Just like studying law does] Yet, like law, the fiscal structure of Washington changes yearly.

Its not impossible to learn, but it takes more time and willpower than the average American has time for. This is why the average American's understanding of their government is more metaphorical and anecdotal.

That's true. Hell, most Americans don't even research a candidate when they vote. They're like,"oh, he's saying things I like, he seems cool, i'm gonna vote for him" and then when that candidate lags in the polls,"oh, he's never gonna win, I guess I'll just vote for the lesser of two evils."

That's just the thing. Washington politicians have no incentive to care about the economic benefits of the program. In fact, they usually have little way of knowing what the benefits are even if they exist. They don't spend according to abstract notions of the common good [Though they'll pay lipservice to it] They spend according to which groups are most critical to their reelection. Usually these groups are concentrated and narrowly focused, occasionally they'll be 'large' groups like the AARP.

Thus congress members saying their number one goal is to simply "make sure Obama doesn't get re-elected." No wonder our country is in the can. Politicians only care about themselves.

I'll reply to the rest of what you said later, I have to get ready for work right now.

---

Taxing the wealthy means your mommy and daddy lose their job, since the wealthy employ... well... EVERYONE. Here's a thought, you're a moron. Welfare, government funded healthcare, food stamps, social security, and a plethera of other government funded programs are a blight on this great country and so are you. You want to know why so many people don't want higher taxes? Because it pays for worthless, unambitious, idiotic people to sit on their asses and not contribute to society. The only fair thing in life is that nothing is free. But you crybaby, tree hugging, granola munching, hippie, liberals whine and complain until you get your way. Congradulations, you've officially crapped all over the constitution, the reason we broke off from England (high taxes in case you're not that far in history class), and the idea Jefferson, Washington, Adams and Franklin had for this country.

wow.... you're an idiot...

---

Yes, because all liberals are hippy tree hugging granola munchers. OH, BUT WAIT! You're forgetting libertarians, like MYSELF, who are actually for less taxes, AND less government, and what the constitution actually stands for.

You think that rich people using the system to exploit the lower classes, corporate lobbyists running the government, and politicians using legislation/amendments to line their pockets, and pay for massive defense bills, and military spending is in line with the constitution?

Why do republicans want less taxes, but seem to be perfectly okay with Senate Bill 1867? Which, btw, is a REAL attack on the constitution, and was proposed by, guess what, REPUBLICANS. Not only does it include MASSIVE spending, but it allows the gov. to detain US citizens, indefinitely, without due process, for being SUSPECTED terrorists.(not even proven terrorists, suspected terrorists)

And that includes: A) anyone who has a stockpile of weapons(which is a violation of the second amendment - right to bear arms, which I support fully), B) a stockpile of food.(which we'll need when the world economy/banking system inevitably collapses), and C) strict religious belief/ferver(not a problem for me, because I'm an atheist, but anyone remember David Koresh in the 80s? Dude had all 3 of these things, and he and his entire congregation were massacred, despite doing nothing wrong)

And rich people aren't employing me, or my family. Businesses are, and the owners of those businesses are not rich. It's multi-millionaires who would be affected by the Warren Buffet tax, and many multi-millionaires, including Warren Buffet(thus the name of the tax), support the tax.

I never said, NEVER SAID, NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER SAID(get it?) that I was for more taxes. I said I supported greater distribution of wealth, and that doesn't necessarily mean taking from the rich to give to the poor.(altho, that isn't an exactly bad notion is it? If I was rich, I wouldn't be too concerned with breaking off a little piece to help folks out)

It means not spending our money on bullshit programs, but distributing it in a way that is less costly. We need class cooperation, not class warfare. But everyone wants to just fight, and be greedy, and bitch and complain, and they're too concerned with their own hidden agendas than helping, and cooperating/compromising.

Failure to compromise is failure to succeed, in my view. It is compromise which allowed civilization to flourish, and it is conflict/disagreement which has always torn society apart. A house divided cannot stand.

---

At 12/5/11 02:10 AM, WallofYawn wrote: Yes, because all liberals are hippy tree hugging granola munchers. OH, BUT WAIT! You're forgetting libertarians, like MYSELF, who are actually for less taxes, AND less government, and what the constitution actually stands for.

Maybe you didn't mean it this way, but from that statement you seem to closely relate Liberalism and Libertarianism which is a big no-no. The only slight similarity between the two is the emphasis on Civil Rights... that's about it. Neo-Liberals and Neo-Conservatives are all about big government.

Don't get me wrong, I do too agree that the States should implement a more equal taxation system for everybody. Although, I also firmly believe that it would entirely unnecessary to even have an Income Tax at all if we were to cut these numerous programs and spending extravaganzas that currently plague this nation.

The current wars/interventions we're in are a complete waste of time and money. Prohibition of marijuana and steroids are a total drag on everybody's pockets. Social Security is probably the most retarded thing ever implemented in this country. With the proper re-routing of funds garnished from the grounding of these fore-mentioned programs, we could afford to compensate everybody for Social Security and cancel it at the same time...

To say that taxes are "worthless" or not needed is completely inane, to say the least. A country can't have a functioning government without some sort of revenue. I'd say everybody agrees with that. What it comes down to is how much government do we really need for society?

---

At 11/22/11 01:34 PM, WallofYawn wrote:

That's not consensual. If I tell you before hand that if you refuse to to perform sexual services for me, I'll throw you in a cage in my basement and subject you to psychological torture for a definite interval of time, is your choice consensual?

No, but taxes have the illusion of consent. My point was, tho, that if everyone quit paying taxes, they'd try and convince us to do so, and we might consent, because no roads would be built, and education/health care would suck. It's not like they can imprison ALL of us.

Well it depends. The problem with "public goods" [see definition below, VERY IMPORTANT] is that people are able to benefit from them even if they don't contribute. The effect of this is to encourage consumption and discourage contribution. That doesn't necessarily mean that these goods cannot be funded without government-style coercion in the form of legal imprisonment.

Definition of public good: A good [or service] where the person who is producing the good is incapable of controlling the recipients] Examples of public goods are national defense, radio waves [prior to satellite and encryption] examples of private goods are cars and education.

The key is that once the funding becomes voluntary, what reason is there to expect that these programs will be managed and/or provided by the same people who are currently holding office in "Government"-- Such a thing is possible, but not necessarily the case.

People like me who emphasize 'private' provision of goods and services are often looked upon as insane, because we are ostensibly advocating that 'essential' serices like education and healthcare be provided by evil profit seeking corporations, as opposed to publically elected 'servants of the common good' But this is not how I, and those of my persuasion look at the issue. We look at it in the context of 1. How it is funded 2. The incentives faced by voters, consumers, politicians, companies, lobbyists, etc. in the context of their respective 'spheres'.

Thus congress members saying their number one goal is to simply "make sure Obama doesn't get re-elected." No wonder our country is in the can. Politicians only care about themselves.

I suspect this is more of a calculated statement. Conservative and many independent voters are mad at Obama. I'm not saying that politicians won't adjust their rhetoric to meet popular demand, they just won't REALLY adjust their other legislative behavior.

I'll reply to the rest of what you said later, I have to get ready for work right now.

---

dude... you need to chill. That wasn't directed at you... boy you sure told me though didn't you? And the Warren Buffet Tax is stupid. "let's tax the multi-millionaires because they're multi-millionaires and I'm jealous that I didn't/don't have the ambition to try to make that kind of money" It's called "class envy" and is a major trait of liberals...

---

At 12/5/11 08:20 PM, radioflyer120 wrote: dude... you need to chill. That wasn't directed at you... boy you sure told me though didn't you? And the Warren Buffet Tax is stupid. "let's tax the multi-millionaires because they're multi-millionaires and I'm jealous that I didn't/don't have the ambition to try to make that kind of money" It's called "class envy" and is a major trait of liberals...

You're right, Buffet isn't a millionaire. He's a billionaire, and he readily admits that he doesn't pay enough taxes.

The only class warfare that goes on is that of the class with power freely using it to keep others from competing with them.

---

At 12/5/11 10:03 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
You're right, Buffet isn't a millionaire. He's a billionaire, and he readily admits that he doesn't pay enough taxes.

The only class warfare that goes on is that of the class with power freely using it to keep others from competing with them.

Nothing is stopping Mr. Buffet and his fellows from purchasing Treasury Bonds. It's funny to hear the statement about "not paying enough taxes". Well that's easy to say for a billionaire. A few thousand in extra taxes is chump change to those people.

Like I said previously, though: If he's so worried about not contributing enough, buy some Treasury Bonds or TIPS! You even make money off of doing it. They go by intervals of $1000.

---

If he's said that he doesn't pay enough in taxes, then that proves that he's got a disease called "bird-brain flu." It's induced by liberal and side effects are guilt, depression, anxiety, ect. Basically, it means that once you've become rich, then you feel guilty and believe that you don't deserve it. Just because someone in the ghetto is eating cat food for dinner, doesn't mean that you're not allowed to have sushi. Take what you've got and stop complaining. Everyone has the ability to make as much money as they believe they're worth. Problem is, liberal media will do whatever it takes to make you feel as guilty as possible about having more than someone else.

Oh and I didn't say, class warfare. I said you had class envy. There's a difference.

---

You're right, Buffet isn't a millionaire. He's a billionaire, and he readily admits that he doesn't pay enough taxes.

The only class warfare that goes on is that of the class with power freely using it to keep others from competing with them.

"Do not argue with an idiot. They'll bring you to their level and beat you with experience." You're an idiot.