{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/3/2013 1:22:20 AM
22
The moment someone can convince me that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, they will never rely on the police, firefighting, public roads and transportation, the military, public education, and social security among other things; this will actually hold some water. Until then, shut up and pay your -blam!- taxes
English
-
You're assuming we need taxes to have those things, we don't. Private enterprise handles all of that better. Government is dangerous waste.
-
Except that they don't. Elementary economics tells us that public goods will almost always be underproduced in the absense of government intervention.
-
But technology has caught up with us and now that they have an effective way to profit from these services they will and be far superior at them than government. Unless you're actually satisfied with how public schools are currently? Really? You trust these people?
-
So then explain how technology would allow this, I'm curious.
-
Private roads already exist...
-
Yes they do, but that was only one of the services above
-
We are our own police, firefighters could charge for services as some already do and what else was there? I remember you mentioning Social Security which was a horrible example. It's broke and a pyramid scheme. If we tried that we would be arrested! Another example of the government getting away with crimes like Barack and his murders.
-
Lol, I can't take you seriously after that, sorry. See you around Camnator
-
You think I ever took you seriously?
-
The moment someone can convince me that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, they will never use government programs unnecessarily, and that most of our taxes will go towards infrastructure, I will be fully willing to pay all taxes.
-
Never said the distribution of taxes was perfect, nor that the system can't be abused. However, paying your taxes and having some of it go to maintaining the services above so that you and others who need them may use them along side those who abuse the system is better than no one paying and no one being able to use them.
-
That's debatable. As of now, we're paying a ridiculous sum of money to "users" that will never pay back into the system, along with people who genuinely need the help but will, nonetheless, never pay back in. People deserve a chance, but I don't think that said "chance" should hurt the workers. If the workers have to pay high taxes (regardless of their wealth) because of how poorly the poor perform, then there's a significant problem.
-
Edited by Madd Marco: 6/3/2013 4:12:54 AMWhat? You do realize that we have a progressive tax system right (I assume you are in the US)? So to say that the working class has to pay high taxes regardless of their wealth is asinine, because the less money you have the less you actually have to pay in taxes. I can understand why you might be unhappy about the "Everyone contributes but only some benefit," but that too is flawed. Last fiscal year, twelve percent of the budget was spent on welfare alone in order to help those of the working class whom were out of a job or required it despite a job (as well as some in the other two classes to be sure). Twenty three percent of it went to health care which I'm sure we can all agree is a service that benefits everyone. And twenty three percent went to pensions (social security). Now, if you were to argue about taxes at the state and local level, then the "who has to pay what" may or may not be valid depending on the policies of your area. But as for Federal Income Tax, neither of your points were valid, though it is understandable why you thought that way.
-
Edited by HM Rob: 6/3/2013 9:41:22 PMThat's the problem: The "working class" pays more than the poor (obviously), and the rich pay far more than the working class could ever dream to have, in total. They system is -blam!-ed, because the more money you make, the more you're compensating for the poor. And no, healthcare for everyone is not beneficial. Those who make enough to pay for themselves have to, in turn, pay higher taxes to ensure the poor can have access as well. Everyone should cover their own -blam!-ing way. Instead of going to school to become more knowledgeable in Women's Studies, why don't people get jobs in medicine, law, engineering, business, etc. so they can actually pay for their own lives.
-
Because not everyone has equal opportunity.
-
With our current system, the people with the least opportunities are actually given the most, via government programs.
-
of course people like houses and protection in my analogy, the issue is that the government STEALS the funding for them! like banditos, or raccoons, or beavers.
-
? so then what you're saying is that just because something is provided by the government it should be free?
-
no, I'm saying that i want to buy my own way freely and not have to pay an [u][i][b]extortion racket[/b][/i][/u] (!!!) to stay out of prison.
-
Except that there would be no other means of collecting money for what you did use. At least not any means that are cheaper and easier. Unless of course, you don't mind paying tolls before getting on every street, writing a check to the fire department before they can help your burning home, pan-handling for money to pay the police officer after being mugged, etc. Oh and all of that would most likely cost a -blam!- ton more money seeing as these services no longer have a steady source of income
-
[quote]extortion racket[/quote] You're certainly trying hard.
-
there definitely is *something* hard here.
