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.
'Fair' is what you pay to get on the merry-go-round.
A century ago the common man did not file income taxes. There was no 'burden' of supporting the government resting on the shoulders of the citizens.
Any 'Tax-theory 101' college course you take will explain that our voluntary system of individual income taxation is a passive method of influencing the masses. It encourages charity giving. It encourages advanced education. It encourages home-ownership. It encourages raising children. It encourages cottage-industry small business.
Our individual income taxes were never meant to be viewed as supporting the federal government.
Our federal government has gotten out of control.
Ah but there is a "fair share." It's just that neither the government nor most of the sheep want to handle it fairly. They all want to screw each other. Either that, or they want to feed the fetish that society seems to have these days of overanalyzing pretty much everything and making pretty much everything overly complex.
If I'm the only person on the face of the earth that feels I should be taxed and charged fairly, then so be it.
Then again, there was a time when the government did their thing without individual income tax at all. That's another option worth looking into.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming
Governments at all levels force me to accept services I do not want.
Yes, I agree with you on that. I feel the same. But, if the government were charging you only for what it actually provided you and what you wanted provided to you, would you be more or less willing to pay it? I'm talking without the twenty-million pages of crap in the tax code. I'm talking about a list of services just like you get when you buy food at the grocery store. The list would have a cost for, say, military protection from foreign invasion. It would then have that dollar figure divided by 350,000,000 (or thereabouts). And it would total a (VERY) few such charges that the nightwatchman government would be providing the general population as a blanket service. And then it would have a figure at the bottom. That's what you bought... just like if you bought a dozen eggs in the store.
Now, of course, you might say that you didn't want to buy whatever particular item. Fine. You don't get it. You don't get charged for it. But there are certain things that you consume just by existing in this county. Those, you pay for. I guarantee you'd be paying a tiny fraction of the taxes the typical wage slave pays now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming
The government should own no land
Okay. I'm fine with this, actually. I'd only agree for the federal government, though. The feds own most of the land in my state. It shouldn't be that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming
Starving government is entirely different from defrauding private businesses. I do business with the latter on a voluntary basis and with an awareness that they, unlike government, cannot lock me in a cage or simply kill me if I refuse to do business with them.
As I said, I'm looking at it as a fee for services rendered situation. You know that I'm no friend of the government and I think that almost everything they do, they should NOT be doing. But, provide me the basic services that I need in order to live an unencumbered life as I personally wish to live it, and I'm okay with that. Anything beyond, I'm not okay with. I believe that was the original intent of the constitution. And if the tiny government that I feel should be in place can be funded in other ways besides taxation, I'm fine with that as well. But, I do not mind paying for goods and services that I receive if it's done fairly and a load of crap on top of what I really need is not jammed down my throat.
I'm a minarchist. If anyone can convince me logically and by example that a society can function in a peaceful, non-encroaching way for the average citizen (note, Mad Max is not an average citizen) without any government at all, then I'm all ears. If anarchy could work without turning into a bloodbath, I'd certainly be willing to entertain the notion. But so far, all examples of which I've read and all theoretical literature I've read (some by VERY smart folks) about anarchy has not convinced me that it's workable for those who cherish liberty, self-determination, and do not wish to become a Neanderthal to secure it.
For, unfortunately, it's human nature for a portion of the population to want to control the other portion. If there were a gene for non-control and non-quest-for-power-over-others (a "mind-your-own-business gene"), and everyone had that gene, then anarchy would work. But that is not the case. So those of us who do have that "mind-your-own-business gene" must do everything we can to protect our right to mind our own business; thus, we have government. But sadly, at this point, we have way too much government--the double edge sword effect. We are a society of balls-to-the-wall with whatever we do. And average joe thinks a behemoth government is a good thing--like a 128 ounce soft drink and a behemoth Dodge diesel truck with roaring 24 inch diameter exhaust pipes--and a tracking chip in the frame--are good things.
Governments at all levels force me to accept services I do not want. There is a moral imperative to deprive them of revenue in any legal way that I can. The government should own no land; they should sell what they do own to private investors. Private investors always provide better management for highest use. Leftist countries, e.g., France, Turkey, and India, have established private toll roads. This country has a few but they could sell entire city street systems. Modern technology would provide convenient billing methods.
Starving government is entirely different from defrauding private businesses. I do business with the latter on a voluntary basis and with an awareness that they, unlike government, cannot lock me in a cage or simply kill me if I refuse to do business with them.
Wait, I thought French were communist?
If we are going to emulate their toll road system, why not emulate their healthcare system too?
These days you do NOT do business with private businesses on a voluntary basis. In each field there are 2-3 entities that dominate the market, you THINK you have the choice.
There is a place for the government. The interstate system is a perfect example of a government investment that came back multiple times in profits. You also see what happens when you leave it to for-profit businesses to manage infrastructure - the Internet in United States is too costly and too slow BECAUSE the government is not treating it as infrastructure. The monopolies like Time Warner or Comcast have no incentive to bring the internet to my neck of the woods and I am getting gauged every day. This means that I cannot run my small business from my rural home and MUST move to the city.
Your idea of giving all land to private entities is utterly stupid and elitist. There are numerous examples of land mismanagement by all sorts of private entities. Ranchers did it for 2+ centuries by overgrazing. Oil companies do it daily by fracking. Coal mining companies have stripped whole mountains bare. Rivers have been polluted. So on and so on. The federal government is actually the last acting guardian of whatever remains untouched for EVERYONE to enjoy, not just a privileged few. Look at a state like Texas, 96% of all land is private. That means unless you have money, you are cornered to your stamp sized lot and that's it. Imagine if I had to pay for every road I take and for everyone's land I cross. How would that be a free society?
Anyways, I think in one of your posts in the past you told us all that your parents bought you your first house and your first car. When you are born into privilege you have nothing but disdain for everyone who wasn't born into the same...
Yes, if you want internet, you do have to use a private business, but people were able to live without internet for quite a long time.
Eh? We are losing the competitive edge with the world because our our crappy connectivity. Instead of wiring the whole country upside and down with fiber, we are dicking around allowing Verizon and a few others to fill their pockets by essentially monopolizing the market. Instead of allow little Tom, Dick or Harry to run their small rural business right from their homestead, we are encouraging them to abandon their place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
Want to compare internet through private companies to the post office ran by the government?
Post office has a sh*tload of requirements piled onto them by Congress that no private entity could stay in business with if these were the same requirements for that entity (like pre-funding their retirement).
I don't know about you but I would not want to be at the mercy of FedEx or UPS to deliver my basic mail, sorry.
Today you got Walmart vs Target, Lowes vs Home Depot, this hotel chain vs that hotel chain, the airlines are consolidating, the internet providers are consolidating, the cell phone companies are consolidating, it is all turning into one chain against another with often a choice of two. The chains have killed off all local businesses and mom and pop shops. The "urban sheep" that you so often loathe are the ones re-creating local small businesses often at their own expense (choosing to pay the local farmer much more than what you would pay for in Walmart, for example). The same chains have cost the country jobs by having everything manufactured in China. They have many times intentionally moved into a market, sold at a loss just to ruin the small local businesses and once the local businesses were ruined, the prices go back to whatever is "real". Places like Walmart, Lowes, Home Depot rely on slave labor in China to provide a false sense of value to their customers, in fact they are distorting the system of values by flooding the market with cheap, unsustainable and unrealistically priced junk (unrealistically priced in a sense that it would never be so cheap were it made in the United States). All this has resulted in is an elite class of executives and investors who reap the benefits of a crooked and unsustainable business model at the expense of the working American. In the long term they have ruined the country, cost us the jobs and have created a bunch of cashiers from people who could have otherwise produced something. You got to be really stupid not to see that.
The problem I see with this argument back and forth about collectivized government controlled/owned industry versus free-for-all, hardcore, only-profit-matters capitalism is that nobody seems to want to admit that neither is optimal, and nobody seems to want to research an alternative (it's hard to research anything, or refrain from turning any research into a crusade or propaganda, when we think in binary). Unfortunately this is the same syndrome that haunts us with most any topic or venture in this country. I'll call it blackandwhiteism. Combine this with our tendency to declare a Black Hat and a White Hat, and ride with our declared White Hat come hell or high water, and you've got yourself a society of hate, demonization, closed minds, and gridlock.
And NO, I don't have the answer. But at least I see the problem.
The problem I see with this argument back and forth about collectivized government controlled/owned industry versus free-for-all, hardcore, only-profit-matters capitalism is that nobody seems to want to admit that neither is optimal, and nobody seems to want to research an alternative (it's hard to research anything, or refrain from turning any research into a crusade or propaganda, when we think in binary). Unfortunately this is the same syndrome that haunts us with most any topic or venture in this country. I'll call it blackandwhiteism. Combine this with our tendency to declare a Black Hat and a White Hat, and ride with our declared White Hat come hell or high water, and you've got yourself a society of hate, demonization, closed minds, and gridlock.
And NO, I don't have the answer. But at least I see the problem.
Capitalism works; socialism does not. But it's more than that. Capitalism requires choice from all parties in a transaction; socialism prohibits choice. Government approved or required monopolies have shown how bad they are for both consumer and producer. Compare protected Bell System to the free telecommunications of today. Consumer prices keep going further and further down. Services are nothing short of extraordinary. As an example, I live in a very low density area twenty miles from a city; but Century Link sells me DSL for $23 per month. Soon, Verizon will be offering 4g service to my area. Bell System made its own determination of the right time to improve service. Companies today don't determine these things; their competitors do.
We need hate, demonization, closed minds, and gridlock which is the liberal's way of saying that our positions should be mush. the government has declared itself our enemy; only private business can maintain and improve our lives. In consumer goods and services require large plant investment the obvious and constantly demonstrated principle is that economies of scale really do matter.
But it doesn't matter what government sympathizers or any others think. The market will judge just as it always has. If the government and its stooges work to disable the market they'll reap the same results that the Soviet Union did. For my part, I'll let the government spend itself into oblivion and hasten its journey as best I can. Government provides nothing, no matter what, of a value equal to what private business can produce. By definition, it never has and never will. Spending more is a defining characteristic of government. Look at history; look at the econometrics; it's a fact.
If the government and its stooges work to disable the market they'll reap the same results that the Soviet Union did.
Yes they will. I do not understand why nobody seems to be able to learn a lesson from past failures. It reminds me of someone who watches a man commit suicide with a handgun and then grabs the gun, puts it to his head, pulls the trigger... all the while expecting a different result. I can only assume that the populace here seems to think that they are somehow above getting a bad result from a bad choice.
Capitalism works; socialism does not. But it's more than that. Capitalism requires choice from all parties in a transaction; socialism prohibits choice. Government approved or required monopolies have shown how bad they are for both consumer and producer. Compare protected Bell System to the free telecommunications of today. Consumer prices keep going further and further down. Services are nothing short of extraordinary. As an example, I live in a very low density area twenty miles from a city; but Century Link sells me DSL for $23 per month. Soon, Verizon will be offering 4g service to my area. Bell System made its own determination of the right time to improve service. Companies today don't determine these things; their competitors do.
We are very much behind any industrialized country in the world in Internet and connectivity both in terms of offering, speed and price. Even my parents who live in a 3rd world country have faster cable internet for far less. Most people in any other country look at you funny when you mention 2-year cell phone contracts. We are being raped. Most of these companies are not just making a living, they are making a killing.
I agree with you that capitalism works - but it only works when the corporations are not persons, when they cannot donate (unlimited) money to political campaigns and when there is no such thing as rent-a-lobbyist. What we have now is not capitalism and is really not much different than feudalism. If 5% of the population has as much as the remaining 95% - how can you possibly say that it works? You can only say it works when it works for the MAJORITY of the population, not for 1 in 100.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming
We need hate, demonization, closed minds, and gridlock which is the liberal's way of saying that our positions should be mush. the government has declared itself our enemy; only private business can maintain and improve our lives. In consumer goods and services require large plant investment the obvious and constantly demonstrated principle is that economies of scale really do matter.
So where are these plants and investments? I'll tell ya - in China. Meanwhile the few people who own the corporations have figured out that they can make even MORE profit 'cause you know, getting paid 350 times the average worker is not enough, they need to make MORE, so they paid their rent-a-politicians and passed laws that it is OK to move all operations to a far away slave-labor country, globalize everything and keep making dough. In the meantime the average American is struggling, prices are higher, quality is lower, jobs are all but gone down the toilet. When you don't make anything the population has only one choice: become a middleman in a chain of middlemen peddling the same s*it to someone else who is a middleman in something else, who will in return peddle something else back to them. It's dishonest and it makes every product overpriced because there are so many people built into it "along the way".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming
But it doesn't matter what government sympathizers or any others think. The market will judge just as it always has. If the government and its stooges work to disable the market they'll reap the same results that the Soviet Union did. For my part, I'll let the government spend itself into oblivion and hasten its journey as best I can. Government provides nothing, no matter what, of a value equal to what private business can produce. By definition, it never has and never will. Spending more is a defining characteristic of government. Look at history; look at the econometrics; it's a fact.
There are things that you can put a price sticker on, like a drill, a phone or a car. It used to be that it even worked in healthcare - many people can remember the nice town doctor WHO WAS NOT RICH, he was just Doc. Someone who took care of his town people and charged a reasonable amount for his services. Now "economies of scale" (you are so fond of) have hospitals managed like enterprises, when you have an enterprise you have a bunch of managers, where you have a bunch of managers, you have a bunch of lawyers, you have publicly traded insurance companies so on and so on. They are all about maximizing profits, driving a nice mercedes, having a trophy wife and being a millionaire. The average doctor will spend a few HUNDRED THOUSAND dollars on his degree combined with forgoing income for a a few years while in residency so when that same doctor comes out of school he needs to make that money up fast. His insurance premiums are high, the costs of equipment, people, offices is high. He is constantly under pressure of being sued (hey, law in United States is the most capitalist industry of all - no?), so on and so on.
IT DOES NOT WORK - look around yourself, most of the country is hurting and it is not because they are inferior to you and you are somehow superior (after al, mommy and daddy gifted you your first house and car, that's quite a start in life).
What we need is a third party to offer an alternative between the left and right bull*it, we need to ban lobbying, institute term limits and ban corporations from being involved in politics. NONE OF THESE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH CAPITALISM - explain to me how it is "capitalistic" for a company to be able to donate unlimited amounts of money to a politician. Explain to me why it is beneficial for a country to have a concept of a corporation contributing to a political campaign. The country has an obligation towards its living and breathing citizens not some entities on paper. THAT'S WHAT'S RUINING THE COUNTRY.
The problem I see with this argument back and forth about collectivized government controlled/owned industry versus free-for-all, hardcore, only-profit-matters capitalism is that nobody seems to want to admit that neither is optimal, and nobody seems to want to research an alternative (it's hard to research anything, or refrain from turning any research into a crusade or propaganda, when we think in binary). Unfortunately this is the same syndrome that haunts us with most any topic or venture in this country. I'll call it blackandwhiteism. Combine this with our tendency to declare a Black Hat and a White Hat, and ride with our declared White Hat come hell or high water, and you've got yourself a society of hate, demonization, closed minds, and gridlock.
And NO, I don't have the answer. But at least I see the problem.
Yes you are exactly right (the blue moon thing). The problem is people in this country have passed the point where they can agree. It is now about hate and not about pragmatism. We desperately need a third political party to offer an alternative.
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.
