Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 50 of 50

Thread: for those opposed to gov't tax and spending cuts ...

  1. #26
    Veteran Member myssi's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    341
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: for those opposed to gov't tax and spending cuts ...

    Unfortunately, there is no national referendum in the US. I think discretedancer is really thinking about initiatives anyway (ballot propositions initiated by citizens instead of referendums which are direct votes or plebiscites on legislature initiated proposals). In any case, only about half the US states allow voter initiatives and/or referendums.

    Even if 90%... no 100% of affluent income were taxed, that still would be only a fraction of the $2 trillion the US needs every year. The middle class is taxed because that's where the majority of the money is.

    Mortgage interest deductions are an example of 'special interest' social engineering deductions that benefit a certain group of people over another (renters).

  2. #27
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: for those opposed to gov't tax and spending cuts ...

    I sure enjoy the mortgage interest deduction without a clear grasp of why I get to have it. Put me in the group of "Keep it simple," take it away from me, along with the other deductions, just have a clear percentage of my income get sent in, and I'll send in a postcard/affidavit for the return. Just getting rid of the mind-numbing machinations during the year and paperwork at tax time will make it worth it to me.

    Our society spends entirely too much of its productive time simply moving around numbers. That's my own "two cents," and I'll shut up about it now.

  3. #28
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: for those opposed to gov't tax and spending cuts ...

    Quote Originally Posted by myssi
    Unfortunately, there is no national referendum in the US. I think discretedancer is really thinking about initiatives anyway (ballot propositions initiated by citizens instead of referendums which are direct votes or plebiscites on legislature initiated proposals). In any case, only about half the US states allow voter initiatives and/or referendums.
    I think you are right. I've never lived in a state that had rererendums like that. I do know that in a lot of states where the people think they have the power of passing referendums, judges have stepped in and overturned the majority vote of the people when the results didn't suit them.

    Mortgage interest deductions are an example of 'special interest' social engineering deductions that benefit a certain group of people over another (renters).
    That's what I object to more than the inefficiencies. I don't like government trying to tell me what to do.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  4. #29
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: for those opposed to gov't tax and spending cuts ...

    Ultimately, if voters are active and organized...we can make it happen. The politicians take advantage of the fact we're not, however.

    Referendums are on the books in most states and (I thought, but never looked it up) federally. Call them ballot initiatives, whatever.

    Bottom line though...if we all agree that everyone over a certain income pays X% (say 20 to keep it simple) in taxes...more $$ for government (slightly) but less out of most of our pockets and less time and BS wasted. We're all ahead.

  5. #30
    Veteran Member myssi's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    341
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: for those opposed to gov't tax and spending cuts ...

    No, there is no federal initiative or referendum... you're probably thinking of Switzerland..closest thing in the US is a constitutional amendment which must be ratified by state legislatures... but not voters. Once again, a referendum is not the same as a voter initiative. Some 23 states, like Pennsylvania, have neither, others like New Mexico and Kentucky only have the referendum,
    Florida and Mississippi have only initiaves, many have both... see the map: http://www.iandrinstitute.org/statewide_i&r.htm
    For more information about national referendum proposals and history of initiative/referendum, etc. see:
    http://www.iandrinstitute.org/
    http://ni4d.us/

    Incidentally, there's interesting controversy about the ratification (or non-ratification) of the 16th Amendment:
    http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/
    (snip)
    # The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.
    # The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.
    # The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
    (snip)

  6. #31
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: for those opposed to gov't tax and spending cuts ...

    OK, I stand corrected. However, if enough US voters demanded something and refused to vote for people that didn't support it...guess what would happen?

  7. #32
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: for those opposed to gov't tax and spending cuts ...

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    Bottom line though...if we all agree that everyone over a certain income pays X% (say 20 to keep it simple) in taxes...more $$ for government (slightly) but less out of most of our pockets and less time and BS wasted. We're all ahead.
    An incredibly simple, yet effective system. Which is why there is no chance in hell that the government will ever adopt it.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  8. #33
    God/dess
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,210
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: for those opposed to gov't tax and spending cuts ...

    Before you talk about making taxes more fair and more just, you have to first prove that taxation itself is fair or just

  9. #34
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: for those opposed to gov't tax and spending cuts ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Observer
    Regardless of your opinion, there can be little doubt our current system is needlessly complex and anti-investment.

    Interesting that Destiny and Myssi bring up AMT; AMT and the increasing number of people affected by it (myself included) will be what forces Congress to change the tax code. AMT is going to screw millions more people than it was originally designed to, and people will start screaming bloody murder.
    When it is gone they start screaming bloody murder their congresscritter isn't bringing home the bacon.

  10. #35
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: for those opposed to gov't tax and spending cuts ...

    2. a proper system would result in the SAME or maybe MORE money (if we all paid 19% of our income...the federal coffers would be equally rich according to MSNmoney)
    Well thank you for proving my point. What segments of the population typically pay less than a 19% federal income tax rate ? From everything I have seen this includes the 'working poor' whose total taxable income, less their low income tax credits and the non-taxed cash value of social benefits they receive without payment, leaves them in a very low current tax bracket. It also includes the uber-rich, whose tax exempt muni bonds, tax advantaged investments (i.e. wind farms), foundations, offshore investments and bank accounts etc. leave them with enough loopholes to achieve a 12% tax rate on a $5 million dollar income (specific example from John & Theresa Heinz Kerry's tax return). The last time I checked both of these groups are heavy supporters of the Democratic party.

    On the other hand, what group of people presently pays federal income taxes at rates greater than 19% ? Typically this group includes the 'middle class' i.e. people with incomes above $60,000 or so, but who have not (or cannot) amass sufficient investment assets to begin playing in the uber-rich big league of tax advantaged and/or offshore banking/investing. The last time I checked, this group are heavy supporters of the Republican party.

  11. #36
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: for those opposed to gov't tax and spending cuts ...

    therefore, since we're all in agreement...what are we doing to accomplish it?

  12. #37
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: for those opposed to gov't tax and spending cuts ...

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    therefore, since we're all in agreement...what are we doing to accomplish it?
    Well, on a federal level, not much. Indirectly, political posturing is taking place to attempt a 60 vote Senate majority after the next election to allow such subjects as major tax system changes, social security system changes etc. to be seriously considered. The House of Representatives isn't of much concern because the population balance is steadily shifting, because ...

    States are very actively pursuing such matters, albeit in diametrically different directions. Most Blue states are refusing to reduce social benefit programs and are raising state taxes to cover the increasing costs. Most red states are holding the line on state taxes and are attempting to reduce social benefit programs. As a result many 'middle class' taxpayers are migrating out of Blue states to avoid the onerous tax burden, and some low income benefit eligible people are migrating to the Blue states in search of better benefits. Thus the population is accomplishing via 'voting with their feet' what has so far not been possible by voting in elections. This also has the indirect effect of Blue states losing House seats and Red states gaining House seats, a trend which is accelerating.

    However, Blue states just don't seem to be able to figure out exactly what's going on with their falling overall tax revenues despite enacting tax increases ...
    Last edited by Melonie; 04-04-2005 at 11:02 AM.

  13. #38
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: for those opposed to gov't tax and spending cuts ...

    1/ why do you connect a simple issue like taxes to cutting social programs? many woudl argue (as we have) that it's more connected to living wage and over-gentrification of communities (while cutting wages) than taxes,

    2, you have evidence of this migration by color and demographics? or is it just Rush Limbaug htheory?

    3, I actually asked what WE are doing on a citizen level to push for saner taxes.

  14. #39
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: for those opposed to gov't tax and spending cuts ...

    #1 - 'living wage' is the exact functional equivalent of imposing an additional tax on employers of unskilled workers. Social program costs are by far the #1 budget item for Blue state local governments

    #2 - I have indirect evidence of this migration by per capita state social program spending data - i.e. New York now spends 2.3 times as much per resident as the national average, while Texas spends less than the national average.

    #3 - as residents of Blue states, there isn't a damn thing we can do to push for saner taxes. In New York at least, people like us who are not social program beneficiaries, and are not civil service employees, and are not employees of a gov't funded business i.e. teachers, nurses, gov't contractors, etc. - in other words people who work in the private sector and pay taxes - are already in the minority ! Here are the stats for my own county in NY

    - full benefit welfare recipients 5%
    - low income partial benefit (medicaid, food stamps, rent/utility subsidy) recipients 21%
    - civil service employees (law enforcement, gov't agencies, highways) 17%
    - gov't funded quasi-private employees (researchers, teachers, nurses) 6%
    - retirees (partial property tax exemption) and college students (TAP) 6%

    that adds up to 55% of the people in my county who are essentially not working in the free market private sector - and who therefore have a vested interest in voting for maintaining current levels of benefits plus higher tax rates to finance them in order to either maintain their benefits or maintain their directly or indirectly gov't funded jobs/pay rates.

  15. #40
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: for those opposed to gov't tax and spending cuts ...

    1. you didn't answer my question why you connect cutting social programs and making a saner tax structure. Divide the 2 issues and you have my support (and I'd guess most people, especially this time of year) - together, the debate gets sticky, with people like me insisting you can't have your cake (low paying jobs that don't give people enough money to rent an apartment and live) and eat it too (cut social programs).

    2. your indirect evidence has no links, so I can't verify it. on the face...I don't evenm know how you connect what a state "spends per capita" to social programs

    Certainly, there's no demographic breakdown in your statement, or any evidence of moves.
    3. I don't know how to use your ONE county to make a national comparison. I also don't know that the 23% of your residents who work for government would like to be counted as not working...and I don't know that you could get your roads cleared,schools maintained, sewer serviced, police paid for, etc without them. Finally, in a democratic society, doesn't majority rule, as you suggested when we debated the REFUGE at ANWR

  16. #41
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: for those opposed to gov't tax and spending cuts ...

    with people like me insisting you can't have your cake (low paying jobs that don't give people enough money to rent an apartment and live) and eat it too (cut social programs).
    So stop insisting ! Cut those benefits and watch those low/no income people either work harder to improve their situation, move out of your state in search of better benefits in another state, or settle into a standard of living which is commeasurate with the added value they are actually providing.

    Try this on re link request

    I wasn't trying to use one county for anything other than to explain why it's impossible to win a 'saner' tax vote, which is the question that you asked. The data for my own county was the result of a lot of research by one local (and politically unpopular) newspaper, and this sort of breakdown data is usually well 'buried' so that it escapes general public knowledge.

    Yes you're absolutely correct that the 17% of direct civil service employees plus 6% of indirect employees of gov't funded businesses do indeed work for a living. My point was that these workers will not vote to cut taxes because doing so would directly impact their future pay rates and/or job security ! So instead they will vote FOR tax increases, and then insist on matching COLA's in their next union contract.

  17. #42
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: for those opposed to gov't tax and spending cuts ...

    I won't stop insisting, because you aren't offering the people on supplemental income (who do work but can't afford to live on what WalMart and friends pay them) any options. Why don't you stop insisting that social programs are sown at the hip with taxes

    They are simply two separate issues, part of larger "financial governance" but 2 different parts. Why not treat them as such, and get at least one win out of 2?

    I think if a saner tax structure (that in the end results in the same dollars to the government) were proposed, NO ONE would have reason to fight it. It cuts the amount of bureaucracy (conservative used to love small government) and prep time, and allows us to do the work of living and governning same as always

    Once that is done, if you can prove the other case...go for it!

  18. #43
    God/dess
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,210
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: for those opposed to gov't tax and spending cuts ...

    Agreement about what?

    The income in toto should be repealed and abolished. It cannot improved.

    I would have a reason to fight a "saner" tax structure. Taxation itself is just robberty writ large. The only way the tax can be improved by the rate marching to(and eventually reaching) zero.

  19. #44
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: for those opposed to gov't tax and spending cuts ...

    Sh0t, how would you pay for police, road service, fire crews, and other public services? Go back to when fire companies were private and if your insurance was with fire company X but lived next to fire company Y they would let your house burn 'cause it wasn't "their turf"? Besides being abandoned in the 1900s (or earlier) it would be virtually impossible to afford training for private fire co crews today...with all the chemicals, etc.

    no. repealing taxes entirely isn't practical...there has to be some way for all citizens to share the cost of common services. We just need to find a fair percentage (since 1960's this percentage has been about 20, the amount actually collected by federal gov't of gross US earnings)and get the bureaucratic crap out of it.

  20. #45
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: for those opposed to gov't tax and spending cuts ...

    Why don't you stop insisting that social programs are sown at the hip with taxes
    Are you just being obtuse here? In the same way that you insist on promoting living wage fallacies that fly in the face of every viable economic model?

    How can you ignore that social welfare programs are the largest non-discretionary federal outlay? You cannot separate taxes from spending; they're inextricably intertwined.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  21. #46
    God/dess
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,210
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: for those opposed to gov't tax and spending cuts ...

    Sh0t, how would you pay for police, road service, fire crews, and other public services?
    You don't need taxes for any of those dd. In fact, we had a massive private road building boom right after the revolution and several states had amendments to their constitution forbidding the governments from getitng involved in roads.
    Police as we know them are relatively new and were created mostly to be a nuisance to the population, not to be helpful. Road owners and other property owners would have great incentives to provide safe areas for business and so forth. Last I checked, crime was getting worse in many areas so government police obviously aren't working too well, and additional the government is usually always trying to disarm the public, making crime even more likely. Throw in the fact that most "crimes" the police fight are non-crimes, it makes it even more bleak for the government-police case.
    Fire service and such things could be easily provided by the road owners, property owners, and their insurance companies and other such arrangements. Why do you think only the government can put out fires? Not to mention the government fire agencies and paramedics have often campaigned to SHUT DOWN private fire and paramedical organizations in order to prevent a challenge to their dominion, thus endangering many. Then also we have the situation of obvious discrimination where everybody is paying for such services, but station closures and such are made for political reasons and therefore those without political clout lose(as in NYC recently). Insurance companeis would have the best incentive in the world to fight fires effectively as they wouldn't want to pay the claim of damage due to fire. I see no problem with companies not providing free service to non-customers. That's how most things work. That's the chance the house owner takes when he neglects to get insurance. The situation youa re referring to also sounds a lot more like the quasi-government voluntary fire departments ala NYC in the 1850s and such than from purely private fire companies working via regular fees. In addition, volunteer firefighting worked quite well actually.

    Besides being abandoned in the 1900s (or earlier) it would be virtually impossible to afford training for private fire co crews today...with all the chemicals, etc.
    Nonsense, there are many private fire fighting organizations today on factory grounds, industrial parks, private airports, and other such things. And huge insurance companies(who would be the obvious entities to really expand into it) have more resources than most countries, much less a city government.


    there has to be some way for all citizens to share the cost of common services. We just need to find a fair percentage
    Repealing taxes is entirely practical and is the most economically rational move. WIthout a free floating price system, you have poor economic calculation.

    There is no "common service". Every service is good to an individual or individual entity(such as a company). The only "fire percentage" or fair price for a service is the free market price, as determined by supply and demand with companies being forced to take the profit and loss test to figure out how to satisfy customers best. Governmental services have no rational economic metric, thus every thing it does is political, whether they try to be "business-like" or not. THe free market price system is the best way humanity has for rationing scarce resources, sending out the proper signals to capital and labor and other such things. There is no magic formula for finding a "fair percentage". Government services are going to be inherently inefficient, subject to political whims and way over the real cost(whether or not the person receiving the service is paying the full cost or not, somebody is paying).

    Taking the bureaucratic crap out of government is impossible. The only way to get rid of the bureaucracy in government is to get rid of the government.

  22. #47
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: for those opposed to gov't tax and spending cuts ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sh0t
    Fire service and such things could be easily provided by the road owners, property owners, and their insurance companies and other such arrangements. Insurance companeis would have the best incentive in the world to fight fires effectively as they wouldn't want to pay the claim of damage due to fire. I see no problem with companies not providing free service to non-customers.
    I forget which city... maybe CHicago or San Fran...but the ENTIRE CITY ended up in a fire because the insurance co's fire company didn't touch the fire until it hit an insured property (how much time is lost looking up whether a property is insured, is the policy paid, etc) and then it was TOO BIG for them to handle

    Besides, how could a small insurance company operate, if it needed a completely trained team for all emergencies. Please, get real.

    In fact, we had a massive private road building boom right after the revolution and several states had amendments to their constitution forbidding the governments from getitng involved in roads.
    yes, and voters supported moving these initiatives to government to avoid people from not "renting" usage to roads to people they don't like, maintaining quality and ensuring internal abilities

    How would you suggest we maintin an international military? individual donations?


    Repealing taxes is entirely practical and is the most economically rational move. WIthout a free floating price system, you have poor economic calculation.
    too bad there's no real evidence to support your opinion...too bad most of them have been proven by history to be A, impractical, B, non workable, C, dangerous, or D, not desired by the majority of citizens (not to mention dumb)

  23. #48
    God/dess
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,210
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: for those opposed to gov't tax and spending cuts ...

    Sure there could be accidents and problems, but in the long run we'd be better off. Government bureaucratic agencies have plenty of problems too. THey have no more incentive to perform than anybody else. In fact, quite the opposite as numerous court cases have ruled that the police, fire, and EMS departments have no legal compulsion what-so-ever to save anybody. So in effect, they can also blatantly refuse to do anything

    Besides, how could a small insurance company operate, if it needed a completely trained team for all emergencies. Please, get real.
    Quite well. There are such agencies in existance for private areas such as industrial parks, factories and shipyards and they work very well. City governments don't have unlimited funds either and since most of their spending is political and not based around demand, all else being equal, we can expect the private methods to be far more efficient and pragmatic. As mentioned above, city fire departments in various places here have been trying to shut down competition, so obviously it is already real.

    yes, and voters supported moving these initiatives to government to avoid people from not "renting" usage to roads to people they don't like, maintaining quality and ensuring internal abilities
    Nope, mostly the government expanded its hegemony by force, and usually due to some war or another we didn't need.
    These weren't "initiatives" to be moved to gvoernment, they were private properties that were simply confiscated via eminent domain and such things. Even if not, robbery via majority vote is STILL robbery, so people voting on such things doesn't necessarily mean it was moral.
    The quality wsa far better on the private roads and railroads than the government sponsored and created ones. Compare James J. Hill's operations to the government competition. Night and day.
    The road owners should be able to deny usage to whoever they wanted, same as you are allowed to deny entry into your house. Nothing at all wrong with that and in many cases might be desirable. The economic incentives would be set up so that those who want to discriminate will have to pay the cost for their discrimination, they way it should be. As it is now, when the government wants to discriminate, society as a whole picks up the tab, not the discriminating bureaucrat. In addition, road usage must be rationed somehow and the price system is the only rationally way. The government system means those who are using it and paying for it will be separated and all kinds of clashes will occur. For instance, should the street be closed down to traffic so as to have a gay and lesbian parade? Should all kinds of traffic be allowed? Private road owners would have to balance the real economic issues and they will want to maximize their revenue(i.e., satisfy consumer demand). THe politicans can just shut down the road arbitrarily and they don't suffer a dent to their pocketbooks. As far as quality i s concerned, thousands of people die on government roads every year. From the multi-dozen in traffic fatalities to the many who die from crime, the government roads are usually of poor quality and quite unsafe in many areas. Naturally, the poor suffer the most as they usually have the worst road quality and the most unsafe areas(while still facing pressure to be disarmed and thus even more likely to be victims). In places like orange county, they are also constantly afraid of the government confiscating their property to give to some crony of the current administration.
    THen we have the traffic issue, which is caused by having the price of such commodity priced far below cost, thus we have in effect "unlimited" demand. The solution to downtown traffic is not necessarily wider roads, but rationally priced roads that have higher prices during peak times and ones that are cheaper at off times. In a situation where users and payers are one and the same, the road will be rationed well, allowing the most critical traffic during peak times and smoothing out the traffic flow to avoid jams and to take advantage of off-peak times. A side note is the fairness of having users and payers as the same group, instead of the split situation now where many people don't pay the full cost of their road usage and others are forced to pay the tab. Those who may be opposed morally to cars and driving are still having to subsidize it via certain taxes. In many cases as well, peolpe living in suburbia and other more affluent areas are not paying the full cost of the roads to connect those places to the city or the sewer system and other utilities. In many cases the poor are subsidizing the rich, and road usage is one of them in major areas.

    too bad there's no real evidence to support your opinion.
    Plenty of evidence both empircal and theoretical to support my opinion


    too bad most of them have been proven by history to be A, impractical, B, non workable, C, dangerous, or D, not desired by the majority of citizens (not to mention dumb)
    Most of them have been proven in history to be quite practical, very workable, safe, and desired. THe problem is the majority of the people don't control the political machine, so what is commanded is not necessarilyl what was wanted. There are plenty of journal articles and sections in books about private roads in early Post-Revolutionary America, many books documented the rise of police forces and the alternatives that were used(especially stuff that describes the "Wild West"), and such things. As far as the price system versus politics, there are only hundreds of thousands of cases where studies have been done comparing government provided services with private alternatives from James J. Hill and his operations mentioned above, to private investigators versus the police, to privateers versus government Navies to private versus public garbage collection. On theoretically grounds and for dabs of history you can check out sites such as mises.org , fee.org , cato.org , or pretty much any libertarian-leaning website. You may say they are not to be trusted, but that is another issue I suppose.



    --post split in two because of length

  24. #49
    God/dess
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,210
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: for those opposed to gov't tax and spending cuts ...

    post continued



    How would you suggest we maintin an international military? individual donations?
    Welp, the question there first is whether or not such a thing is even desired. In many cases, I would say no, as it would be an economic "bad" not an economic good. IN addition, private defense methods would be far more attractive from my point of view. One big problem solved would be the corporate welfare function of government Navies. When the US Navy is abroad "defending american interests" what that really means is it is abroad defending certain PRIVATE american interests, not the interest of the Republic. It is keeping shipping open for certain shippers, protecting some corporate investment somewhere, etc. We can see this trend going back to the colonial period and to the early interventions in Latin America on behalf of Chase Bank, United Fruit, Dole Fruit, and even the conquest of Hawaii. For one particularly enlightening example, we see the Marines going into to Nicarugua to force the Nicaruguan government to raise taxes so it can pay American banks on bonds.


    This is a form of corporate welfare because the part of the cost of operation for these companies is being borne by the tax payer and not the corporations themselves. It is a bit of a synergy as the governmetn doesn't want any other entities out there with firepower while the corporations themselves want to socialize the costs. So rather than having these shippers buy, staff, and maintain their own men-of-war to protect their merchant ships or contract with a mercenary Navy, the cost is socialized on the taxpayer. Easy solution here is to pretty much abolish the Navy, allow the second amendment once again, and let shipping companies outfit their ships with armaments to protect their cargo and other assets. Similar things could be done for land situations, protecting trucking, etc. Insurance companies would have incentive to have defense against bombing and such things and this would mean real investment in DEFENSE. Not investing in offense but calling it the Department of "Defense", real defense. See 911 for either an example of how our 500billion dollar a year "defense" department is either worthless or quite the opposite, actually committed the act.

    Continuing on that theme, standing governmental armies are, far from being protectors, actually a danger to their population. Many of our founding fathers spoke out against standing armies as a danger to our liberty and they would be proven correct as every war since the Revolution has been unnecessary(our involvement at least) and most of them were instigated by certain factions of the polical group to utilize the government military to enhance their own power and economic situation(war of 1812, mexican american war, spanish american war, etc). IN addition, the us military/government has often found americans in its crosshairs, from the supression of tax revolts after the Revolution, to putting down anti-draft riots during the Civil War, to the USS Maine(if you hold the contrarian viewpoint), the Lusitania incident, numerous instances of attempts to get us into WWII before Pearl Harbor, the Oklahoma City bombing, Waco, the first WTC bombing, and depending on your view, 911 itself. I hold this view.
    So far from being desirable and needing of a better private version, an "international" military is an economic BAD and quite horrific. We don't need bases in 100 countries same as we don't need to butt our political nose into the affairs of others around the world. In addition, a large portion of our "military" budget goes to foreign dictators and bad regimes around the world as bribes for one or another reason. For instance, we gave Suharto plenty of cash and even supported Pol pot AFTER the killing fields. To go even further than that, the Soviet Union ITSELF was mostly funded by US and western european capital and technology. The cold war was basically a sham as the funding for both sides was coming from the same place: us tax payers. The deaths were very real, but it was quite unncessary, but it was profitable, so we suffered with it. Same goes for China, our current superpower bogeyman. The federal military has been the worst thing the American people have been afflicted with since the Revolution. I would give my life to see it abolished or even desanctified.
    On other defense issues, we have to continue to keep in mind that a well armed citizenry is far more a deterrant than a military, and the government and its agents are always on the lookout for more ways to disarm us. Yamamoto himself even said invasion of the US would be impossible because "There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass". Rifles the government is almost always trying to confiscate and make illegal. So if anything, the military makes us less safe, not more safe. In addition, the majority of enemies "we" have are because of the military and its continued presence in the lives of other people around the world. War also always brings abridgements to our liberty, high taxes, and the very real threat of death as those we are harming seek revenge. Do you think any iraqis hate americans right now? I would bet maybe a few do. Depending on who you believe, 100,000 iraqis have died due to this current misadventure and if we add up the ones we killed for ten years prior, we have something like 500,000+ iraq deaths on "our" hands. Those people have families who may indeed hate americans and may one day try to "get back" at somebody.


    Some final notes would be the embassy and drug war issue. As I see it, you take your chances if you travel abroad. Whole nations shouldn't clash because some silly american tourist had problems in some foreign land.
    The military also participates in the war on economic freedom, the War on Drugs, denying americans products they desire or may even need which fuels much statism here and abroad. Do we really need to be spraying toxic chemicals over fertile farmlands of latin american and other areas in order to limit marijuana and cocaine? AS a concerned enviromentalist, surely you have to think that is tyrannical. Yet it goes on and that's the handiwork of our beloved military and similar agencies. Did we need to turn vietnam and cambodian into minefields and toxic wastelands in some areas?

    We could use the 500 billion a year for better things. I say abolish the military and give us a tax refund.

  25. #50
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: for those opposed to gov't tax and spending cuts ...

    1. other countries with militaries would LOVE to find a society without one...it's called FREE COLONY

    2. what evidence can you point to that supports your opinion? Should I simply believe it exists because you state it?

    3, what war caused western towns to hire a sheriff (paid for by all citizens)? What force was used to governmentalize NYC (or any city's) police and fire? What functional examples do you have of your beliefs?

    4. no way a small insurance company can affort $5MM in equipment, personnel and training...that would lead to ALOT higher premiums.

    I have no argument that governments are abused...but we can't live without them...unless you can show otherwise.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-08-2010, 05:24 AM
  2. income tax rates and gov't spending calculator
    By Melonie in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-14-2010, 07:41 PM
  3. US GDP falls despite record gov't spending ...
    By Melonie in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-04-2009, 12:41 PM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-06-2009, 11:39 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-14-2006, 11:24 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •