Taxes are Theft

[emacknight]

@Bryan_Ekers

Is it a strawman argument to speculate that this is wrong and provide an attempt to reason out why this is wrong? If so, that’s what I’m about to do, though it’s not a “strawman” by any definition I’m aware of.

Agreed, I too would like to attempt to reason why you are wrong without hiding behind our fictional sativum giants.

@Bryan_Ekers

The kids won’t be in the same place they are now, at least not collectively. Figure they all have parents who don’t care. Under the current system, the kids get jammed by law into public schools, some significant percentage drop out some percentage graduate, some minority goes on the college or the military or whatever. Under your proposed system, I can only assume schooling is not mandatory at all (it’s the parents’ choice, and if they choose not to pay for schooling, there will be no schooling). Is it fair to say that whatever the percentage of dropouts was in the public-school system (and the results - more teen crime, illiteracy, drug addiction and pregnancy), it can only be worse under a system where there is no schooling at all?

I think it’s perfectly fair to say that for some kids things will get much worse. But we need to acknowledge that we have an awful lot of teen crime, illiteracy, drug addiction and pregnancy under the current system. I am genuinely curious to know if spending more money would actually reduce that. And if spending less money would really make it much worse.

I pointed out the other side of the coin to a situation where without the added tax burden, things for some kids could get much, much better.

So is the point of society to make sure everyone suffers equally, or to minimize suffering over all?

$1 dollar spent on a rich kid could net society $100 return. As a made up fictional comparison, spending $1 on a poor kid could then cost $52k for the break in. We invested all that money and still got an illiterate degenerate. Are we getting a good return on our investment?

@Bryan_Ekers

If we’re engaging in serious thoughtful cost/benefit analysis, first I’d want to establish that understanding of evolution was a good litmus test of productive citizenship. Personally, I think basic financial knowledge (how to file a tax return, build a retirement plan, manage a checking account and credit cards and a mortgage) is far more important for most students, with evolution-understanding only being critical for those students pursuing careers in the sciences. It pains me personally to think of a majority of the electorate being this ignorant, but I have to admit other priorities.

Exactly. The recent financial crises has proved that we’ve also failed to teach basic financial knowledge, in addition to kids dumb enough to think the Flintstones was a documentary.

So again, what are we getting from all that money?

@Bryan_Ekers

You could, but will you? Personally, I’d rather have a solidly-funded educational system that didn’t depend on private generosity, because having an educated population is a worthwhile state interest.

I agree that having an educated population is a worthwhile state interest. Are we getting an educated population?

Depending on how you look at it, I’m disproving your thesis. All that public education has taught me to dismiss critical thinking, ignore logical arguments, misspell half my words, and believe that taxes are theft.

@Bryan_Ekers

Doesn’t that sort-of already exist, with one’s own children? Granted, the picking process is somewhat randomized, but if you maintain a good relationship with your kids, it’s fair to expect them to help you out when you’re old.

Well, it SHOULD exist, and is pretty much what I’m advocating here. Let parents take personal responsibility for their children. Let parents recognize the cost of having a child, and decide for themselves what they want to do. The way it looks now is that people keep popping them out and assuming the government will babysit them until their old enough to move out. Personal responsibility is gone.

As a wise man once said, people have shown quite conclusively that they care more about the size of their tv, than they do about their kids education.

And to reiterate what this thread is about, people need to have personal responsibility for their actions. I agree that society is better of with a well educated population. But ultimately who is responsible for that kid’s education?

If you say it’s society’s, shouldn’t we follow through and take the kids from the idiot parents and make sure they actually end up educated aka boarding schools?

I’d like to think it’s the parent’s responsibility to see their child gets an education, and society’s responsibility to see that it’s available.

If a parent isn’t willing to sacrifice to pay for their own child’s education, why should I?

And if you say it’s in my best interest, that kid shouldn’t be left in that parent’s care.

[emacknight]

“The cost of the FDA would show up as a fee on medication, medical devices, and inspected food. If I felt that the FDA was a corrupt bunch of political appointees, I could choose to by food from Bob’s Inspection Service. Sure it costs more but I get fewer cases of salmonella, and a free hat.”

@Marley23

Or you end up trying to treat your cancer with ginseng. But hey, you get what you pay for.

Exactly, I get what I pay for. If the FDA is forced to compete against Bob’s Discount Medical Evaluation, it can only make them better.

If I want to cure cancer I can make the choice between a drug the FDA says won’t kill me, or what some dude in funny hat gives me. To decide, I can pull out my Consumer Reports Medications Edition and see how things stack up.

As it stands, how’s the FDA’s track record? How safe is our food supply? How many medical devices fail and kill people?

If the FDA is so good, they’ll have no problem out competing all the other medical regulators. As Ann Coulter famously said, “let’s see how Toyota is doing in 6 months.” (she said that over a month ago).

[gonzomax]

There is a collective conscience in a society. When you argue that you have no responsibility for the educational system, you are showing you don’t care about other peoples kids. A lot of people are not fit parents . Some don’t respect education. If their children just are allowed to go along without decent educational opportunities, we will pay later. You don’t escape by closing your eyes. You actually have to deal with problems.
Our society does not provide equal educational opportunities for all its children. It is bad enough being poor without having people look down on you for it. It would be impossible to take all the disadvantaged children from their parents. The rational thing is to attempt to provide all kids with a decent chance. An educated populace uplifts all of society.

[Tymp]

The value of money itself is determined by the sustainability of the society that backs it. One cannot separate the currency of a nation from the overall wellbeing of that nation’s citizens. The perceived value of the U.S. dollar is rooted in the ability of the United States (the people collectively and the government by the people) to earn and retain wealth, and to pay debts. If the U.S. were to stop public funding for education or law enforcement, the predictability of the U.S. economy would decline. Thus the value of the U.S. dollar would decline. After a certain point, withholding funds from the society reduces the value of the funds that each individual retains. That’s dumb.

[emacknight]

First I need to repeat my disclaimer that I in no way mean to be disparaging towards the poor, or less fortunate.

@gonzomax

There is a collective conscience in a society. When you argue that you have no responsibility for the educational system, you are showing you don’t care about other peoples kids.

But I do care. Except, why do I have to care more than the parents? Does that make sense to you? By putting the onus on my, you take it off the parents. By spreading the risk you reduce the individual responsibility.

Why are people having kids if they don’t care about their education?

If you want me to pay for it, let me have a say.

And if there is a cost associated with an uneducated child, who’s responsibility is to pay that cost? Me, or the parents?

Your say the solution is a massive state funded educational system.

I say stop letting people have kids until a) they can afford it and b) are willing to pay for it.

It’s not about being rich or poor, both groups produce equally shitty kids. Except the rest of us are expected to pay for it.

@gonzomax

A lot of people are not fit parents . Some don’t respect education. If their children just are allowed to go along without decent educational opportunities, we will pay later. You don’t escape by closing your eyes. You actually have to deal with problems.

Okay, let’s deal with the problem. Each problem, on it’s own merits. And I will counter back, that you don’t get to close your eyes and hope that paying your taxes will get kids educated.

As a society we’ve shown that collectively we don’t give a shit about education. Test scores are pathetic, undergraduate degrees are too rare, the population appears to be getting dumber.

And yes, I will gladly use evolution as a metric for just how stupid society can be. The ability to make a reasoned and informed decision is paramount to an education. Believing in fantasy and make-believe in one area of knowledge translates into other areas. If you’re willing to believe a child molester in in a dress, over a community of scientists, we’ve failed as a society.

Which makes me wonder how much prayer went in to hoping interest rates would stay low.

I will admit now that I’m off on a bit of a tangent.

@gonzomax

Our society does not provide equal educational opportunities for all its children. It is bad enough being poor without having people look down on you for it. It would be impossible to take all the disadvantaged children from their parents. The rational thing is to attempt to provide all kids with a decent chance. An educated populace uplifts all of society.

I agree whole heatedly.

[Marley23]

@emacknight

Exactly, I get what I pay for.

Which works great if you know what you are paying for. If not, it doesn’t work very well, and this is particularly true when it comes to health.

If the FDA is forced to compete against Bob’s Discount Medical Evaluation, it can only make them better.

Unless Bob’s is willing to cut some corners to save money, or provide misleading results because someone paid them to. In which case people (most of them poor, under your system) are likely to wind up dead. Eventually it might hurt their market share, it’s true.

If I want to cure cancer I can make the choice between a drug the FDA says won’t kill me, or what some dude in funny hat gives me. To decide, I can pull out my Consumer Reports Medications Edition and see how things stack up.

Good luck to you in getting reliable, understandable data.

As it stands, how’s the FDA’s track record? How safe is our food supply? How many medical devices fail and kill people?

Its track record isn’t good enough and there are too many problems with drugs and medical devices. How many people do you think died of food or drug purity problems in 2009 as compared to 1900?

[emacknight]

@Marley23

Unless Bob’s is willing to cut some corners to save money, or provide misleading results because someone paid them to. In which case people (most of them poor, under your system) are likely to wind up dead. Eventually it might hurt their market share, it’s true.

Or we could leave it up to the government. Hasn’t it already been conclusively shown that the government is incompetent and not to be trusted?

If Bob shows that he can’t be trusted, people won’t. What happens when the FDA shows that it can’t be trusted?

What happens when the FDA is staffed with political appointees, who are paid by big pharma, and people end up dead?

@Marley23

Its track record isn’t good enough and there are too many problems with drugs and medical devices. How many people do you think died of food or drug purity problems in 2009 as compared to 1900?

Is that our benchmark? As long as we’re doing better than the 1900s everything is okay?

[Marley23]

@emacknight

Hasn’t it already been conclusively shown that the government is incompetent and not to be trusted?

It’s been shown to your satisfaction, yes. For the rest of us, maybe not.

If Bob shows that he can’t be trusted, people won’t. What happens when the FDA shows that it can’t be trusted? What happens when the FDA is staffed with political appointees, who are paid by big pharma, and people end up dead?

Maybe we should start with you telling me what you actually know about the FDA and how it works.

Is that our benchmark? As long as we’re doing better than the 1900s everything is okay?

The FDA was set up in 1906. If you think we’d be better off without it, I think it’s reasonable to compare food safety now and then.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@emacknight

Depending on how you look at it, I’m disproving your thesis. All that public education has taught me to dismiss critical thinking, ignore logical arguments, misspell half my words, and believe that taxes are theft.

I don’t have any idea what your educational background is. I wasn’t even speculating on it. So far, though, we’re getting an increasingly complex mix of made-up numbers. If I may attempt to simplify:

Status quo: some kids become very productive members of society (engineers, scientists etc.) and play an active role in improving society for everyone. Most kids become productive members of society (holding down jobs that get things done but have no lasting effect beyond the kid’s immediate circle). Some kids becomes drains on society (becoming addicts or criminals or lifelong welfare recipients).

It’s possible to move between the three groups (arbitrarily designated A, B and C)and, arguably, almost everyone ends up in the last one eventually just by living long enough to retire and start drawing on public assistance of some kind. Similarly, someone may suffer an illness or injury and end up in the last group through no fault of their own. I’m prepared to have this summary challenged by any compelling arguments.

Anyway, option 1: spend more public money on high-end education.

Speculative result: The number of kids in Group A grows. Some kids who otherwise would have been in B move to A, some kids who were already likely to be in A move higher within A. Group C is essentially unchanged. Maybe some very talented kids who would have ended up in C get a shot at A (or high-end B) instead.

Option 2: spend more public money on overall education.

Speculative result: Some B kids get a shot at being. Some C kids get a shot at B. Most C-probable kids who have crappy indifferent parents end up as C kids regardless.

Option 3: cut all public money to education.

Speculative result: A-likely kids with wealthy parents still end up in A. Some smart and talented but poor kids who might have made it to A still manage through scholarships and whatnot, but others land in B. Significant numbers of low-end B kids slide into C. Families that might have raised a B student cannot afford to fund a school system on their own and the promised tax savings means relatively little to them, so the families themselves begin sliding lower. Some low-end B kids join the military with eyes on self-improvement (as many do today), but the military itself is suffering cutbacks in the “pay only your share” tax utopia of the future.
Basically, I can’t see how what you’re proposing helps in the short-run, nor how it can possibly avoid significant damage in the long run. At the very best, maybe, it pushes society back toward a class-based caste system where children follow the trades of their parents with no real expectation of rising.

Well, it SHOULD exist, and is pretty much what I’m advocating here. Let parents take personal responsibility for their children. Let parents recognize the cost of having a child, and decide for themselves what they want to do. The way it looks now is that people keep popping them out and assuming the government will babysit them until their old enough to move out. Personal responsibility is gone.

It’s not clear to me how your proposed solution would get them to snap out of it. I speculated recently in a drug-based thread that if we’re considering the costs of investigating, prosecuting and punishing drug offenses, why not just give the addict free drugs? They might have a shot at holding down some low-responsibility min-wage job if they’re not concerned about stealing enough for their next fix. It was when issues of morality and a determination to TEACH THEM A LESSON got involved that simple solutions get disregarded. I have no illusions - some people simply can’t learn personal responsibility. Since leaving these people behind to be eaten by tigers is no longer an option, I only want to minimize the damage they cause.

And to reiterate what this thread is about, people need to have personal responsibility for their actions. I agree that society is better of with a well educated population. But ultimately who is responsible for that kid’s education?

I thought the thread was about taxation, myself, but if it is going to be about responsibility, then what you propose is no solution at all. Irresponsible parents aren’t going to learn through tax reform. Their kids, who might have been helped and inspired by a dedicated public school teacher to make something of themselves, will instead follow their parents’ example, and nothing will get done.

If you say it’s society’s, shouldn’t we follow through and take the kids from the idiot parents and make sure they actually end up educated aka boarding schools?

Well, that sort-of happens in extreme cases, through foster-parenting and such, but the barrier to removing a child from a parent is (and in my opinion, should be) quite high.

If a parent isn’t willing to sacrifice to pay for their own child’s education, why should I?

Because you derive the benefit of not having your house broken into and your car stolen as often.

And if you say it’s in my best interest, that kid shouldn’t be left in that parent’s care.

It would be simpler to set up public schools with qualified teachers and mandatory attendance and hope for the best than to send out armies of social workers to seize kids and have them educated in state-run boarding schools. Heck, if the parents are as irresponsible as you say, they’ll just make more kids anyway. It would be nice if we didn’t have to pay for the mistakes of the stupid, but until we come up with a cure for stupid, it’s the best we can do.

[DCnDC]

The basic premise is still fatally flawed because you fail to realize and/or understand the true cost of the things that taxes provide to you. We’ve already looked at law enforcement(in which your system causes the total collapse of civilization as we know it, but we’ll just ignore that), let’s talk about something a bit less complicated: transportation, more specifically, roads. The cost of building and maintaining roads is prohibitively expensive for a community to support on its own through tolls or even direct contributions. Even a simple rural country road will cost $1.7 million a mile. Say you’ve got a 10 mile commute to work and there are only a few dozen people who ever use that road. Are you and those 30-40 people going to split the annual cost of maintaining that road by yourselves, at $25,000 a mile? If you’re using that road 5 days a week twice a day, that’s a $24 a day toll for everybody($250,000/260 days/40 people), or $6,250 per person per year under your system. What if the road was 50 miles?

Not to mention all the other roads/highways you’ll use throughout any given day/month/year/lifetime.

How exactly are you going to buy insurance to pay for that?

Or, you could just pay the $171 a year it currently costs you to drive almost anywhere you want for no additional charge.

[Chimera]

@emacknight

Yes, it was made, and shot down. I take great enjoyment doing it again.

So in other words, NOT shot down but just disregarded based on faulty logic.

[emacknight]

@DCnDC

The basic premise is still fatally flawed because you fail to realize and/or understand the true cost of the things that taxes provide to you.

Strawman

@DCnDC

We’ve already looked at law enforcement(in which your system causes the total collapse of civilization as we know it, but we’ll just ignore that),

Another strawman.

@DCnDC

let’s talk about something a bit less complicated: transportation, more specifically, roads. The cost of building and maintaining roads is prohibitively expensive for a community to support on its own through tolls or even direct contributions. Even a simple rural country road will cost $1.7 million a mile. Say you’ve got a 10 mile commute to work and there are only a few dozen people who ever use that road. Are you and those 30-40 people going to split the annual cost of maintaining that road by yourselves, at $25,000 a mile?

BINGO, you win a prize.

Allow me to hold your hand as we walk backwards through your example: You have 10miles of country road, with 30-40 houses on it, the cost of which represents $25,000 per mile.

If that cost was part of your “association fees” for owning one of those houses, would you choose to buy one?

When my wife and I were looking for house last year we jokingly mapped the drop in house price as we moved away from certain key centers. Buying the house we have was $50,000 cheaper than the same thing 5-10 miles closer to the city. But that 10miles represents $250,000 more in roads. The cost of the roads aren’t shown on the cost of my house, so we chose the cheaper house.

Your example is exactly what I’ve been trying to point out for 8 pages now. How many roads are there in the US with less than 30-40 people living on them? How many people have a greater than 10mile commute? I can tell you that as I train for an Ironman I spend several hours riding up and down empty county roads, and I can guarantee you the single house ever 5miles isn’t paying his fair share.

People all over the US are deciding to drive an extra 10miles down an empty country road BECAUSE the houses SEEM cheaper. But they’re not, they actually cost an $1.7 million per mile more than the previous house.

Except, the people buying those houses aren’t the ones paying for the roads, the rest of us are. They get to decide, on their own, that our taxes should go up so that they can have what seems like a cheaper house.

[emacknight]

@Chimera

So in other words, NOT shot down but just disregarded based on faulty logic.

That’s right, your logic was faulty, so it has been disregarded.

[Czarcasm]

@emacknight

That’s right, your logic was faulty, so it has been disregarded.

Can you recall a time when “No I’m not-you are!” has ever won a debate for anyone?

[Bryan_Ekers]

So this IS just a rant about suburbanites.

[sqweels]

Most of the money that gets “redistributed” goes to the elderly. And yet it appears as though conservatives are the ones who particularly paranoid about potential cuts in Medicare, etc.

[emacknight]

@Chimera

I’m sure someone else has expressed this view by now, but;

The use of public assets by those who consider taxes to be theft, is theft.

So everyone else thinks this is a logical statement?

How about these statements:

The use of public assets by those who pay taxes, is theft.

• well, no obviously not

The use of public assets by those who do not pay taxes, is theft.

• no, unless paying taxes was a requirement for use, which it usually isn’t

The use of public assets by those who pay their taxes but think they’re too high, is theft.

• doesn’t make much more sense

If I think something that is currently public should be a for pay system, it is not theft for me to use it.

So there, shot down. Unless you want to try again.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@emacknight

So everyone else thinks this is a logical statement?

Well, by your own account, you bought a cheap house whose price didn’t take into account the cost of the surrounding roads, so by your own definitions, you’re a thief enjoying a public benefit you haven’t paid for.

[emacknight]

@Bryan_Ekers

Basically, I can’t see how what you’re proposing helps in the short-run, nor how it can possibly avoid significant damage in the long run. At the very best, maybe, it pushes society back toward a class-based caste system where children follow the trades of their parents with no real expectation of rising.

It might, the problem is that you’d be amazed how common that is now. When I went through culinary school, 9 of 10 kids had parents in the restaurant business. When I went through engineering 9 of of 10 had parents that were engineers. Of my friends that are doctors, nurses, teachers, wanna guess how many have parents that are the same or similar?

What I’m proposing would certainly suck for those at the bottom, but frankly, life sucks at the bottom no matter what. And it wouldn’t do much for those at the top.

So what about that meaty middle chunk. The Real Americans (c).

For those that plan, they could end up pretty far ahead. The cost of putting two kids through K-12 is probably pretty low compared to being taxed for 40 years to pay for other kids.

@Bryan_Ekers

It’s not clear to me how your proposed solution would get them to snap out of it.

Probably wouldn’t, I sure wish it would though.

@Bryan_Ekers

I speculated recently in a drug-based thread that if we’re considering the costs of investigating, prosecuting and punishing drug offenses, why not just give the addict free drugs?

I speculated once that instead of paying $30,000 a year to incarcerate each criminal, we should try to use that to prevent crime, perhaps by funding work projects and education efforts. Didn’t go over well.

As a society we’re not big on prevention, always just dealing with the shit after the storm. I remember a quote ones about an ounce of prevention, then something, not sure what.

@Bryan_Ekers

Because you derive the benefit of not having your house broken into and your car stolen as often.

And we’re back to extortion.

If we don’t pay for their education, they’ll break into my house.

You’re actually convincing me that I’m simply better off either putting that money into fortifying my house. Or putting that money into more police.

@Bryan_Ekers

It would be simpler to set up public schools with qualified teachers and mandatory attendance and hope for the best

Okay, so you need more money, and more government intervention. Do you see a theme here?

We have crime, why? Because we need more money and more government intervention.

We have [a problem], solution is more money and more government intervention (regulation).

Oh, and that government regulation is going to require more manpower, and that’s expensive, so you’re going to need more money.

@Bryan_Ekers

It would be nice if we didn’t have to pay for the mistakes of the stupid, but until we come up with a cure for stupid, it’s the best we can do.

Oh god that would be so nice. Unfortunately we’re stuck with a public school system that isn’t helping as much as you’d like it to.

[emacknight]

@Chimera

I’m sure someone else has expressed this view by now, but;

The use of public assets by those who consider taxes to be theft, is theft.

So you guys really think this is a logical statement? To say it isn’t won’t hurt your position.

I think McDonalds should charge for ketchup packets.

Am I a thief for taking free ketchup packets?

No, the packets are free, and as long as they remain free I’m not going to pay for them.

I am going to play by the rules set out. I can still advocate new/different/fewer rules while following and playing by the rules we currently have. Are you really not aware of the free-parking-fallacy?

It sucks that we had to buy a house further away than we wanted, but like I said, our system does not reward responsible behaviour. There is no incentive for me to do the right thing.