Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope. Where you live, you have to abide by those rules. Don't want to pay taxes then either move or hire a great tax attorney/or learn how to game the system.
Alright, so let's use that reasoning. My friends and I will just surround you and say "We decided that we're allowed to take everything you own and punch you in the face. You're living here, so you have to abide by the rules. If you don't like it, learn how to game our system or move."
It's even more dishonest to say "if you don't like it, move" regarding taxation, because there is no society to move to that won't try to tax you.
Quote:
If you believe it's a violation of property rights then take it to court and see what happens..... just because you think something, it doesn't make it true.
The problem is that the government isn't the decider of what's right or wrong. Also, it won't rule against itself and admit to stealing from everyone. That would be hilarious though.
Quote:
I know I can't convince you taxes aren't theft, but we both know you'll never win your case in a court of law or any place that actually matters. You'll more than likely just complain over internet message boards and push your theory that will never be accepted.
It's not just complaining. The only way it will ever change is to lay out the logic for people and hope they can look at it rationally. In my experience, most people can't. The reason I'm hopeful is that you just need some influential people to accept it (which is actually happening) and the average Joe will follow. Most aren't experts on philosophy and politics, so they'll follow people they trust.
Alright, so let's use that reasoning. My friends and I will just surround you and say "We decided that we're allowed to take everything you own and punch you in the face. You're living here, so you have to abide by the rules. If you don't like it, learn how to game our system or move."
LOL.... That's a terrible analogy.... You can do better than comparing the function of a country to a group of thugs.
Quote:
It's even more dishonest to say "if you don't like it, move" regarding taxation, because there is no society to move to that won't try to tax you.
Then that should tell you how wrong you are then...
The problem is that the government isn't the decider of what's right or wrong. Also, it won't rule against itself and admit to stealing from everyone. That would be hilarious though.
It actually is. When you have laws, you have to pick an arbiter.
Quote:
It's not just complaining. The only way it will ever change is to lay out the logic for people and hope they can look at it rationally. In my experience, most people can't. The reason I'm hopeful is that you just need some influential people to accept it (which is actually happening) and the average Joe will follow. Most aren't experts on philosophy and politics, so they'll follow people they trust.
Right.... and yet most people choose to function in a society of laws instead of anarchy.
You're posting noise. What does "regions" have to do with it when we know 2 very basic facts:
It broke down regions and compared urban vs rural areas.... please keep up.
Quote:
1) Cities have a higher poverty rate than rural areas. And on top of that cities have a MUCH higher population density.
Not according to my two links. Rural areas are poorer now than urban areas.
For the third time.....
Quote:
2) Democrat voters need public assistance help at a rate that's 2 or more times higher than that of Republican voters.
Which has nothing to do with my original point, apparently you got some sort of complex....
Quote:
Look, if you can't acknowledge what the problem is, nothing is ever going to get any better. You can't fix a problem you won't even admit exists.
The problem is rural areas have increasingly been losing to cities and therefore are increasingly falling behind. Look at where the economic activity and jobs are now.
It broke down regions and compared urban vs rural areas....
No, it didn't. It listed only rural and metropolitan (city AND suburbs). The 2014 poverty rates I listed are more specific by residential area. Look at the chart. It includes 4 parameters instead of only 2 (the chart you posted):
It's a mistake to not understand more precise data if you ever hope to address the poverty problem.
Quote:
The problem is rural areas have increasingly been losing to cities and therefore are increasingly falling behind. Look at where the economic activity and jobs are now.
That's a perfect example of why it's so important to look at more precise data. Look at the chart at the link I posted. You'll see that the data completely contradicts your assertion which is based on data that is too vague. What's actually happening is that the city poverty rate is increasing, while the rural poverty rate is decreasing.
LOL.... That's a terrible analogy.... You can do better than comparing the function of a country to a group of thugs.
Then that should tell you how wrong you are then...
Fantastic.... take it to court.
It actually is. When you have laws, you have to pick an arbiter.
Right.... and yet most people choose to function in a society of laws instead of anarchy.
Alright, well you're asserting things without making a single argument, but I'll respond one more time.
It's not a terrible analogy, but I was expecting that reaction. It's literally the exact same thing, except the government is seen as legitimate because they do rituals (voting, "the legislative process", etc) and the organization has been around for a long time. If you have an actual explanation as to why it's different, go ahead and explain.
Also, there is such a thing as private arbitration, and you're assuming societal rules must be enforced in a top-down manner by a central authority...which I don't really blame you for, since people rarely think to question it.
I like the idea. Instead of a mish-mash of efficiency regulations and renewable energy subsides, there would be a tax on what is causing global warming: attack it directly and stop beating around the bush. Plus, the plan is designed not to burden the economy. And fewer bureaucrats poking their noses in everyone's business.
"To avoid an undue burden on the poor from the higher energy bills that would result, the projected $200 billion to $300 billion in annual revenue would be redistributed to households in the form of quarterly checks from the Social Security Administration. Families of four would see an average annual payout of $2,000 under the plan, they say."
This would result in transferring money from the rich to the poor since poor people use less energy.
It should improve the economy because people and businesses could find the best way to cope with increased energy costs instead of having to comply with arbitrary rules and regulations.
Why put a carbon tax on gas? Why not put a carbon tax on large corporations and businesses that notoriously violate the environment. Then tax breaks on large corporations or businesses that strive to lessen their environmental impact.
Tax refund to consumers with an electric or hydrogen fueled car.
Why put a carbon tax on gas? Why not put a carbon tax on large corporations and businesses that notoriously violate the environment.
If they use gas, oil or coal they would pay the tax, too. That's the point: to make them pay for the costs of their activities. It's related to that externality stuff economists talk about.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,150,711 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyfan
"To avoid an undue burden on the poor from the higher energy bills that would result, the projected $200 billion to $300 billion in annual revenue would be redistributed to households in the form of quarterly checks from the Social Security Administration. Families of four would see an average annual payout of $2,000 under the plan, they say."
This would result in transferring money from the rich to the poor since poor people use less energy.
So let's see if I've got this straight. The middle class will be paying big bucks for electricity... so the government can have more revenue. And that revenue that is not eaten up by the government bureaucracy will be given back to those who more than likely are eligible to receive government energy subsidies already. Okay got it. So instead of Obama care...... will this be named CarbonCare? Will we be penalized by the IRS if we go off grid?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
