Just cursor over the link & see if it ends with “.pdf”…
But why should he be responsible for his own internet warnings? 
Why are you offended that people live in deserts now?
Says the person who keeps touting his own responsibility. If you have no incentive to be responsible and would be rewarded for irresponsibility, why are you bothering?
Thank you for the research, DC. If we’re discussing government-regulated resources, I’d like to throw in electromagnetic frequencies. Under a pure free-market system. any radio or television station or other broadcaster could just claim a chunk and if competitors want that space too, they can fight it out and the winner will be whoever is willing to spend the most money to build the more powerful transmitter.
Of course, the net effect is the the spectrum gets jammed and nobody benefits, but at least some vague lesson about personal responsibility will be imparted… or something.
Anyhoo…
Who said penance? I always figures taxes were the price of living in a free stable society. And if one feels the price is too high, there are steps one can take to minimize it. Looking around the world, I see countries that range from worse to a lot worse and though I don’t like paying my taxes and get annoyed when I perceive stupid government spending, I recognize my considerable personal luck at being born here.
Well, dollars are dollars, I guess, regardless of where they come from. I’m not sure what you mean by “closed system”, though. A road isn’t just used by some limited local segment of the population. The existence of a road allows goods to move through and encourages development along the road and such. Even dead-end rural roads occupied by only a handful of cabins create the future possibility of more cabins there, then houses and eventually apartment buildings, stores and factories. Sure, this kind of development might never happen. Not building the road, though, guarantees that it won’t happen ever. And if while we’re waiting around, we demand the cabin residents pay for the road, that only ensure the cabin residents will be driven away by the absurdly high price.
In fact, ultimately, what could end up happening is only the very rich will be able to own property and pay the “fair” price you describe. Everyone else will be reduced to renters, sharecroppers and latter-day serfs. And won’t that be lovely?
In all seriousness, I find your arguments lacking. At the very least, you’re ignoring the considerable benefits offered by public services.
It’s been pointing out that this isn’t simple at all. Sure, add a nickel to the price of a soda can. But calculating road fees based on usage? Then you’re back to toll booths and/or GPS tracking, which are definitely not simple solutions. Perhaps more simply, one could just increase taxes on cars, gasoline and tires so at least we get some approximation of fairness (i.e. the people who drive more, pay more), but trying to price usage on that isolated country road? Why bother?
Well, it’s your free adult responsible choice to keep the battery and give up a small space in your garage for it. Congratulations, you’ve living the dream.
Well, give it a shot, suggest it to your government representatives. Maybe this kind of small-scale grassroots initiative could do some good. Just don’t tell them it’s a master plan to create a whole new tax system or they won’t take you seriously.
I don’t know you personally, I can only say that in my opinion you are advancing (and determinedly clinging to) an unreasonable idea.
And it’s statements like that I take as evidence. You’re labeling us (I assume I’m being lumped in) “pro-tax” now? We believe in “gospel”? One limited application proves you completely right and us completely wrong?
Actually, that sounds pretty clever and I wholeheartedly support it.
I’m fairly certain I’ve demonstrated that I know exactly what things cost, and I have no issue with paying for it through what I believe is a fair amount of tax on my income. As I said, my taxes as well as yours and everybody else’s are for the most part to the benefit of everyone, perhaps not directly in everyone’s case, but the potential benefits greatly outweigh the relatively minor cost to me personally.
Again, you have this attitude because you can afford to pay a water bill that is 357% higher. Good for you. Unfortunately some people cannot, for a myriad of reasons, some of them their fault, many others by no fault of their own at all. What would you have them do? Go homeless because they have to choose between paying their water bill and paying the rent? This is why the government subsidizes these things and spreads the extra cost among everybody.
I don’t disagree with you that people would have an incentive to live frugally and responsibly if they were not shielded from the true cost of reality, but that would be a perfect world and perfect worlds don’t exist. As you stated yourself in the OP, the world isn’t kind and gentle, it is a harsh, difficult place to survive in but there have to be some types of safety nets for those who are not as perfect as you, or we may as well declare “every man for himself” and let chaos reign.
You’re not completely wrong. But what you are describing is impossible.
We don’t care where you choose to live; but if it is on this island, you choose to pay taxes. If you choose not to pay taxes, you may live anywhere else you like.
Your sense of entitlement to the benefits of America without the responsibility of paying taxes is rather odd, given your claim of the libertarian ethos.
And I suppose we could come up with a tax to cover the additional postage eh?
Ah, I get it now. If I want to live on this island I have to pay taxes.
We all agree to that?
Does that just apply to me? Allow me to illustrate why I find it strange that you are attacking me on this point:
What would I have them do? I would take Fear Itself’s advice and go live on some other island where the water is free. Then I would tell them that there sense of entitlement to the benefits of America without the responsibility of paying taxes is rather odd.
Personally, I think telling them to go live some where else is a bit harsh.
Seriously? Am I the only one that thought it was common courtesy? It goes along with labeling things not safe for work. I get that you don’t agree with my position in this thread but can we not at least be civil? I saw a link I thought was relevant and found myself downloading an 89 page conference report.
Also, has anyone finished reading it yet? I haven’t been able to find the 357% part.
That’s not an option for people who don’t pay income taxes because they don’t have much income. For you, it might be an option. “Send those poor people somewhere else” is not a solution to social problems, it’s just NIMBYism.
So… again, what would you have them do?
Look, at first I thought you were insane, but as this has continued I realize your ideas are not totally wrong; however, you still have yet to provide anything even remotely resembling a real solution, some grand plan that you have that’s going to solve everything, and I was taught that if you don’t have a solution, you don’t get to complain.
You don’t have to be below the minimum tax line to not be able to afford a 357% hike in your water bill.
This statement is 100% false. First, because the revenue does not benefit everybody equally, and second because there is a significant amount of harm done.
Public schools, police, fire, health care and indisputably to the benefit of everyone. And it is easily arguable that the rich actually benefit more as a result of these programs.
So at first the concept sounds great, tax income as a way of taking more from those with more to give.
But then things get out of hand, because the “benefits everybody equally” shifts to “benefits most people indirectly” If you (not you personally) need to add the word “indirectly” you’ve failed, the minimum standard needs to be “directly.”
So we take military: yes, need defense. Can’t have a user pay system, so we’ll tax it. Should it be based on income, property value, sales? Here is an interesting example of where taxing labour may be more appropriate. Require $1000 (made up number) a year for 4 weekends of service. This isn’t put out as a debate topic, but as an example of how just saying “let’s making it income tax” isn’t straightforward.
But then, the military part starts to get fuzzy because we’ve crossed over into a point where it is now causing us harm instead of benefit. The massive military build up causes other countries to respond with similar build ups. All that money ends up in pork projects to buy votes. Federally we are taxed so that a small town can build tanks (that the military doesn’t even want), but those tanks aren’t benefiting everybody equally. It is a huge boost to the town, and then a bit of trickle down to the rest of us, but the military build up hurts us nationally. (anyone that hasn’t seen both Fog of War and Why We Fight won’t understand this paragraph)
As another example, in the US corn is heavily subsidized. That means there is a lot of surplus corn that needs to get used. So it ends up in everything, and what’s left after that gets turned into gasoline. Now we’re starting to realize that all that subsidized corn is hurting us instead of benefiting us. (read Omnivore’s Dilemma for more on this). Again we have a tax that DOES NOT benefit everybody equally.
Lastly, we have the federal highway system. Initially it seems like this benefits everybody equally. Improved commerce is essential. But should it still be a federal system? Having all those roads (essentially free for users) alters people’s behaviour. As I pointed out, it becomes cheaper to live further. This means more pollution, more accidents, and more congestion–leading to the need for MORE highway funding. And when it is underfunded [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Saint_Anthony_Falls_Bridge]things go wrong. Meanwhile, investment in rail lines dwindled to the point that they can’t compete with highway trucking.
My point isn’t to belabour your statement about “benefits everybody equally.” But to point out that if we start looking at the federal budget (or any budget) we can start to see all kinds of money spent that either isn’t benefiting everyone, or in fact is making things worse.
And before you hit “submit reply” consider reading through This wiki page and make sure that you aren’t inadvertently arguing in it’s favour.
Just musing on things - if we’re to calculate the benefit an individual gets from living in Canada (or the U.S. or whatever) accordingly, it goes somewhat beyond just the streets he uses and the police and fire departments in his venue. By all indications, living in a westernized democracy adds years to one’s life expectancy. The wiki chart of life expectancy shows westernized democracies at the top (with arguable exceptions of Hong Kong and Macau - though recently returned to Chinese rule, they retain many of the features of their former European colonialist systems and are significantly ahead of mainland China). I have to go down the list pretty far before finding what is clearly a non-democracy (the U.A.E. at #33, though I’ll recognize some of the higher entries as possibly arguable). I’m not sure how far up the list from the bottom one has to go before finding a stable democracy. India, I guess, at #139.
And it’s not just a westernized democracy, but a modern westernized democracy. Canada (#11 - woohoo!) enjoys an overall life expectancy of 80.7 years. Compare that to a time well before the modern social safety net and indeed before modern sanitation and water treatment. Let’s say, the early 1920s, when life expectancy was about 60, roughly equal to the modern-day utopia of Ghana (#151).
So, what’s an extra 20 years of life expectancy worth? Surely it’s worth figuring into the calculation.
Yes, harsh, when it’s directed against you. :mad::mad::mad:
But funny when applied to others. :D:D:D
Kinda wondering where the notion of all the poor people sponging off those who work comes from.
As a percentage of income total taxes paid (sales tax, income tax, property tax and so on) is pretty close to even across all income levels.
Also, illegal immigrants pay taxes too and since they are here illegally cannot benefit from those payments (e.g. they pay Social Security taxes to the tune of $9 billion/year yet cannot collect Social Security…IIRC the system would be in much worse shape without this income).
As notions go, it’s a fairly tenacious one. I’ve seen it corrected six or seven times in this thread, yet it keeps popping up.
Considering we were discussing the merits of water subsidies, these arguments, while they may or may not be true, are totally irrelevant in the refutation of the statement you quoted conveniently out of context.
Nobody here is contending that the government and the system in place are perfect; we could all sit here forever pointing out the flaws and missteps of the powers that be, but what you are contending is that because everything is not perfect, the entire system needs to be demolished and that is a complete and total failing of logic and reason on every possible level.
Well, sending them somewhere else would “benefit us all equally.” I say we pay for it using tax revenue. It has already been established that if you want to live here you have to pay taxes. (insert smiley)
Okay, the next time I notice a failing levy, but don’t quite have a plan for what to do, I’ll keep my mouth shut. Is that what you want? (another smiley)
Clearly if I didn’t point out all these inconsistencies people would go right on adding yet another publicly funding solution to the publicly funding problem.
On a personal note: it represents a lot of what’s going wrong politically. Democrats think that ideas of other Democrats are great without question, and assume Republican suggestions are wrong. Republican think that ideas of other Republican are great without question, and assume Republican suggestions are wrong.
From time to time we need to question what we believe to be true, to make sure that it’s still true.
Back to the serious part: This again goes back to making responsible choices. Like subsidizing highways, we also subsidize water. Put the two together and we end up with cities hundreds of miles into the desert. And technically, their cost of living is on par with everyone else for exactly the reason you said, “why should they pay more for their water and highways?”
Try this out: some people on this board live in the north, some in the south. How do people in the south feel about the idea to have a federally funded snow removal system (at the local level)? Tax everyone equally so that people in the north don’t have to pay so much for all that snow removal.
The argument for it is easy: People in the south will benefit indirectly by commerce functioning in the north. Don’t like it, move to an island.
The argument against it is also easy: Snow removal is the cost of living in the north. Don’t like the snow, move south.
I’m going to quote this again for effect: From time to time we need to question what we believe to be true, to make sure that it’s still true.
I agree with this statement completely.
However, I will quote this again for effect: you still have yet to provide anything even remotely resembling a real solution, some grand plan that you have that’s going to solve everything.