Taxation Poll

[Iriemon]

Government's only engender the creation of wealth when they follow their proper function and protect the lives and property of the indivdual.

Government's establish stability in a society by creating and enforcing property laws that tell investors it's safe to use your money.

Government acts of confiscation and entitlement serve to remove property from true owners and the extent to which they do that is the amount of damage they do to wealth creation.

Government's do not create wealth. Men do.

We are being redundant.

 

[Iriemon]

It just irks me how we pay taxes which are completely un-necessary. Every little tiny bit of money you make gets taxed and it shouldn't be that way. I understand the need to pay some taxes, but to be held liable for taxes on every little cent you make no matter where you or how you make it is just outrageous and rediculous. It used to not be this way in this country and the government still had plenty of money to run itself. So why does it have to be this way today? It irks me that they have ways of taxing retirement accounts as well. Like the 401k, you still have to pay taxes on it as well as with a Traditional IRA. I think ALL retirment accounts where you can only contribute a certain amount every year should be made if you contribute, you get to claim a tax deduction AND the money made from investment earnings cannot be taxed. This will assure that government does not work against people trying to better themselves as the government is currently doing. Right now the government is working against people from bettering themselves and it simply is not fair. It's almost as if you should just turn around and give your ENTIRE paycheck to the government every paycheck because that is the direction it is going. Or, just not work, because you get taxed too much and it is no longer worth your while to work and turn around live on welfare. It's just I really think the US government is robbing and ripping the American people off and it's outrageous. Even if we do pay the smallest amount of taxes in comparison to other nations, it doesn't change the fact that is nothing more than legal robbery and it doesn't change the fact that the government, if ran responsibily can run very well and efficiently without taxing the people at the currently level that the people are being taxed. The people should not have to pay higher taxes simply because criminals in the government want to rob, steal, extort and do a terrible job of managing the nation's finances. That's not the people's problems and their is no reason for the people to pay for criminal behavior of politicans in Washington or because they mismanaged the nation's finances. I personally think that if politicans mismanage the nation's finances then only they should be forced to pay for their mismanagement out of their own pocket books by law. That will assure the politicans do a good job and won't try to engage in criminal behavior or make taxpayers pay for their little projects.

It would be nice to live in a utopia where you don't have to pay taxes but get Govt services.

Though we almost have it here. Vote more Republicans in, and if you are lucky enough to inherit a lot of money, you can live off investments from your trust fund your whole life and not ever have to pay a dime in taxes. Of course, if you are not one of those very wealthy, and have to work for a living, you'll have to pay more taxes so the very wealthy can live that tax free life.

 

[libertarian_knight]

It appears the majority disagrees with your view.

And? you act like that's a reasoanble response. It's Not. A majority view, if based upon false premises, inaccurate views, or inaccurate/imcomplete information, and then imposed upon the whole society will cause a great many problems.

When plans are implemented, that ignore fundamental realities, the plans will cause more strife, than they seek to fix. Imagine some auto mechanics: Your car has a problem, five guys say it's the battery, two guys say it's the starter. The problem is actually the starter, the battery is really fine. So do the five guys fixing the battery issue, magically make the battery the issue by force of will?

No, so the five guys chose the battery, and the starter remains unfixed. Now resources and time (life) have been wasted, and the problem is still there. So now, the five have demanded it is the battery, and no point revisitiing their desicion, because of course, majority rules. So the car still has issues, they decide to start reaplcing all fuses and relays. no fix Well since IT was the battery through magic force of will, and realys also since the majority is never wrong, it must be the alternator, nope, then the buttons for the power windows are causing shorts. I mean, the majority said it was not the starter early on, so since the majority is right then what? everyone's ****ed.

Could you imagine if it really worked that way? Nothing would be done. See the majority is often wrong, or at least, not always sure. And, as you say, once the majority as decided, there is no point revisiting majority decisions.

That's a cop out. Furthermore, I don't know if the majority ever actually made explicit decisions on the prior mentioned view to which you responded.

 

[Kelzie]

And? you act like that's a reasoanble response. It's Not. A majority view, if based upon false premises, inaccurate views, or inaccurate/imcomplete information, and then imposed upon the whole society will cause a great many problems.

When plans are implemented, that ignore fundamental realities, the plans will cause more strife, than they seek to fix. Imagine some auto mechanics: Your car has a problem, five guys say it's the battery, two guys say it's the starter. The problem is actually the starter, the battery is really fine. So do the five guys fixing the battery issue, magically make the battery the issue by force of will?

No, so the five guys chose the battery, and the starter remains unfixed. Now resources and time (life) have been wasted, and the problem is still there. So now, the five have demanded it is the battery, and no point revisitiing their desicion, because of course, majority rules. So the car still has issues, they decide to start reaplcing all fuses and relays. no fix Well since IT was the battery through magic force of will, and realys also since the majority is never wrong, it must be the alternator, nope, then the buttons for the power windows are causing shorts. I mean, the majority said it was not the starter early on, so since the majority is right then what? everyone's ****ed.

Could you imagine if it really worked that way? Nothing would be done. See the majority is often wrong, or at least, not always sure. And, as you say, once the majority as decided, there is no point revisiting majority decisions.

That's a cop out. Furthermore, I don't know if the majority ever actually made explicit decisions on the prior mentioned view to which you responded.

I freakin hate cars. Anyway, if I understood your analogy correctly through my lack of mechanical knowledge, you are saying the majority is not always right. I agree. That's why we have a constitution, to protect the rights of the minorities when the majority is wrong.

 

[libertarian_knight]

I freakin hate cars. Anyway, if I understood your analogy correctly through my lack of mechanical knowledge, you are saying the majority is not always right. I agree. That's why we have a constitution, to protect the rights of the minorities when the majority is wrong.

It's not only that the majority can be wrong, but also uncertain, or ignorant of all revavant information. What's more, as the majority can even decide an answer, though right for one circumstance, would not be applicable for a very similar circumstance.

Furthermore, all that is needed for a Consitutional Amendment, is of course, significant majority approval anyway.

The only thing that can truly prevent the majority from implementing it's wrongness, no matter how aggregious, is the majority itself. Only Temprence, knowledge, and reason can aid such a course.

 

[Kelzie]

It's not only that the majority can be wrong, but also uncertain, or ignorant of all revavant information. What's more, as the majority can even decide an answer, though right for one circumstance, would not be applicable for a very similar circumstance.

Furthermore, all that is needed for a Consitutional Amendment, is of course, significant majority approval anyway.

The only thing that can truly prevent the majority from implementing it's wrongness, no matter how aggregious, is the majority itself. Only Temprence, knowledge, and reason can aid such a course.

It's funny, I just had this discussion an hour ago in my international affairs class. Some fishers up in Maine decided to take the problem of over fishing into their own hands, since the government wouldn't do anything about it, by slashing the over-fishers tires and burning his house down of that didn't work. All the...less logical (see how nice that was?) liberals in my class were cheering for the fishers. I pointed out that while the majority (represented by the governmet in this case) might have been wrong, that is no excuse to take laws into your own hands. You cannot burn someone's house down every time you feel the majority fails. It might be an imperfect system, but it's the best we've got. The alternative is either anarchy or dictatorship. Neither of them seem particularily fun.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

It appears the majority disagrees with your view.

Well, it's a good thing the merits of any argument aren't supposed to be judged on how many idiots have feelings one way or another then, isn't it?

 

[Kelzie]

Well, it's a good thing the merits of any argument aren't supposed to be judged on how many idiots have feelings one way or another then, isn't it?

:lol: It's funny cause it's true.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

It's funny, I just had this discussion an hour ago in my international affairs class. Some fishers up in Maine decided to take the problem of over fishing into their own hands, since the government wouldn't do anything about it, by slashing the over-fishers tires and burning his house down of that didn't work. All the...less logical (see how nice that was?) liberals in my class were cheering for the fishers. I pointed out that while the majority (represented by the governmet in this case) might have been wrong, that is no excuse to take laws into your own hands. You cannot burn someone's house down every time you feel the majority fails. It might be an imperfect system, but it's the best we've got. The alternative is either anarchy or dictatorship. Neither of them seem particularily fun.

Want to protect fisheries? There's an easy solution:

Auction the fisheries to the highest bidder, and then strictly enforce trespassing laws.

The group that paid a billion dollars for sole rights to a fishery will have a vested interest in maintaining that fishery profitably.

So long as fisheries are part of the commons, no one using the commons has incentive to limit his personal catch.

 

[Kelzie]

Want to protect fisheries? There's an easy solution:

Auction the fisheries to the highest bidder, and then strictly enforce trespassing laws.

The group that paid a billion dollars for sole rights to a fishery will have a vested interest in maintaining that fishery profitably.

So long as fisheries are part of the commons, no one using the commons has incentive to limit his personal catch.

Hardin's tragedy of commons, eh? That's actually what started the whole thing.

 

[Kelzie]

Sorry forgot something. The government moniters a lot of commons. Why can't they do the same with this one?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

:lol: It's funny cause it's true.

A few years ago a pollster called me up and started asking questions about the local refinery.

Q: "How do you feel about increasing production"?
A: "I don't have any feelings about it at all. What did the engineers running the place say?"

Q: "Do you think it's safe if they would increase production by 50%"?
A: "I don't know. Would the people that own the place be willing to risk a billion dollar refinery and a billion dollars in lawsuits if it was risky? What do the engineers say about it?"

By about the third question the girl on the phone blurts out "are you an engineer?"

Yep. Yet in this society we send people who's principal strength rests in getting people to vote for them to make laws and regulations about incredibly technical matters that have impact on all of us.

That should make everyone very nervous indeed.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Sorry forgot something. The government moniters a lot of commons. Why can't they do the same with this one?

As far as I know, they do. There's limits on quantity taken, and there's international discussions on fisheries all the time. It's a major industry and poachers aren't welcome.

Isn't that the reason the US expanded it's territorial waters out to 200 miles in the '70's?

 

[Kelzie]

As far as I know, they do. There's limits on quantity taken, and there's international discussions on fisheries all the time. It's a major industry and poachers aren't welcome.

Isn't that the reason the US expanded it's territorial waters out to 200 miles in the '70's?

You could be right. We didn't talk about the situation as much as the fisher's reaction to it. But if the government can successfully moniter a commons, then Hardin's argument is faulty, no?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

You could be right. We didn't talk about the situation as much as the fisher's reaction to it. But if the government can successfully moniter a commons, then Hardin's argument is faulty, no?

You're going to catch me because I'm not trained in economics, but I don't think that it's a true "commons" in the classical sense when access to it is rationed. Thus Hardin's argument isn't so much faulty as it is inapplicable.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Want to protect fisheries? There's an easy solution:

Auction the fisheries to the highest bidder, and then strictly enforce trespassing laws.

The group that paid a billion dollars for sole rights to a fishery will have a vested interest in maintaining that fishery profitably.

So long as fisheries are part of the commons, no one using the commons has incentive to limit his personal catch.

National and international ocean fishing is a particulalry difficult system to establish usage rights on for a case by case basis.

See, fish, unlike cattle or land, kind of, don't stay put. Fencing in the Fish would be an extraodinarly mammoth problem (oceans are big, and it would interfere with other marine life).

Furthermore, say it could be done, a ocean fishery area with license or owned use. The billionaire investors keep their fishstocks healthy and strong, and people hang outside the boarders of the area, waiting for the fish to leave, or rent the border area, or somewhere close, and invest nothing extra.

Also, there are thousands of boats in the water at any time, and someone could simply, cruise by, snatch some fish, and head out too.

Becuase of the nature of oceans and fish, there is not really too much that can be done to avoid the commons. Especially in international waters. I mean countries have a hard enough time patroling national waters and land boarders, against immagrants and smugglers, and oceans are HUGE.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

National and international ocean fishing is a particulalry difficult system to establish usage rights on for a case by case basis.

See, fish, unlike cattle or land, kind of, don't stay put. Fencing in the Fish would be an extraodinarly mammoth problem (oceans are big, and it would interfere with other marine life).

And it's greatly compounded by the problem of our own ignorance. Creating fish ranches hasn't worked too well because we don't know enough about the fish, and economical ranching apparently pushes fish population densities higher than is healthy for either the fish or the surrounding environment.

(a "ranch" should be the correct term, although the alliterative term "fish farm" is typical. Then again, people in California talk about "avocado ranches", though I've never seen any video of the spring round up of the new avocados for branding...)

 

[libertarian_knight]

(a "ranch" should be the correct term, although the alliterative term "fish farm" is typical. Then again, people in California talk about "avocado ranches", though I've never seen any video of the spring round up of the new avocados for branding...)

I damn near peed myself.