Doesn’t anybody believe in islands anymore? Yeesh!
I’m willing to pay 100% of my income in income taxes if necessary, but only if my income taxes only went to pay for those things that I consider legitimate government functions (and the overall tax burden was spread among citizens on some reasonable basis–and I think the current progressivity of rate brackets is fine without the earned income tax credit etc. making many people pay no or negative taxes).
But the bigger point is that it doesn’t matter what you personally are willing to pay in taxes. What matters is whether the government’s use of force is justified. I think it’s only justified in certain circumstances, as I discussed above.
Oddly enough, I was pretty sure I’d have more support. But as they say, it’s not about doing what’s popular, it’s about doing what’s right.
Picking when a government’s use of force is justified is just as slippery as deciding what is a valid government use of tax revenue.
Huh? I think they are the same thing. And of course it’s slippery. I’ve shown my argument–what’s yours?
"I don’t want people to suffer and die. I get no satisfaction from it. But what I’ve realized is that I’m powerless to stop it. People are going to suffer and die regardless of how many more government programs we create. "
Are you saying that as a turn of phrase or because you believe it?
Why is government the only way to alleviate suffering?
Well, my primary argument for the purposes of this thread is the OP is nonsense, but if you want a general summary of my feelings on taxation and justifiable governmental expenditures, I’d guess we probably have the same basic list, except mine includes single-payer health insurance.
Because if people get to opt out, the system simply does not work.
Does it really? Are you being sincere here? Or are you the victim of a giant misperception, miscalculation, or delusion?
And they don’t get a say in how you act either. But the way the system is set up, we all benefit overall.
Again, what makes you think that it’s irresponsibility that’s to blame for the bulk of misfortune? To a large extent, misfortune is statistically inevitable. We can act to lower such statistical probability, but there will always be some.
You’re couching all this in terms of individual responsibility and then blaming people for failing to od something that can only be done collectively! The larger the collective, the easier and cheaper it is to take action to avoid problems or to alleviate suffering afterwards?
What is the individual fault of a hard-working parking lot attendant for the failure of the community as a whole to build a dam whose absence resulted in the destruction of her residence, which was the only place he or she could afford to live?
Here’s exactly why you need collective action. Because the responsible decisions of individuals to ensure their personal security often doesn’t add up to what would have been best for everyone.
And here’s another thing – why do you think that city is there? Because people individually decided to throw caution to the winds? No, it’s because history, location of resources, transportation needs, local, regional, national, and global commerce, all pushed for a city to develop in that location. It’s very likely that you yourself benefited in some way from that city being there. The world is complex. Society is complex. You can’t isolate cause and effect and pretend you’re somehow not connected to what’s going on.
One reason why you might think you haven’t gotten an answer because it is so fundamentally at odds with the realities of the world that it’s hard to figure out how to even begin to respond.
If this is your realization, then you’re living in a paranoid fantasy.
Some people suffer and die, but a lot of people have been spared suffering. All you have to do is look at how conditions in our country have changed and how they’re changing in other countries. A hundred years ago thousands of people in the United States died every year from tainted food, from fraudulent medicines, from dangerous workplaces, from polio and measles and influenza. The world is a lot better now that government regulates these things. Yes, some people still die from such things, but the numbers are significantly smaller. How can you conclude that you are powerless when the benefits are so obviously apparent?
And what is money? How do you get it? What makes it worth anything? The whole notion of money is not compatible with your idea that people are completely independent actors in the world.
No you won’t, because there won’t be any guarantee that you can ascertain for sure what they will do. And private charity system will never work as well as a universal program. It’s impossible, because it cannot spread costs and benefits efficiently.
Oh, Acorn. So is your knowledge of Acorn’s activities based on actual facts or some kind of right-wing propaganda campaign?
And the sole reason that that private road has any utility is that it connects to public roads.
Your individual generator might never exist, because of a lack of public infrastructure that made it profitable to manufacture and distribute on a wide basis, especially as far as your isolated cottage on private land. That kind of rural area would probably never have power service, because there would never be enough paying customers to make it worthwhile.
If enough people don’t like it, they’ll vote in a different federal government that won’t pressure states on drinking ages. If not, the setting of drinking ages is a worthwhile price to pay for everything else.
Well, here I agree because single-payer health insurance just make sense. Like I said, I’m all for paying for the things I use. If teaming up with others benefits I’ll happily play along. Right now I buy into a group plan because that is by far cheaper and better than some shitty private plan.
Having single-payer health insurance (one massive group plan) happens to be the smartest, and most efficient way of providing me with care. Private insurance is for suckers.
Because it is the only effective and efficient system. It creates the most benefit with the least burden.
No, you’re just stubborn and unrealistic. Your charity contribution does less good than your taxes do.
(1) You will be able to afford less total services than you’re getting now.
(2) You won’t be able to enforce that contract, unless you also pay for a private army.
Turn of phrase. My point is that while government programs cannot completely eliminate dying and suffering, they can reduce it.
I haven’t read the rest of your post yet because this point really bothers me.
“it was the only place he could afford to live.”
The problem is that his “cost of living” neglected the fact that the damn needs to be maintained. If living there had a $100 per month damn maintenance fee, mandatory flood insurance, and a fee that reflects the cost of rescue should the damn break I seriously doubt he would still think living there was cheap.
That’s my point here. We have all these artificially low costs because it’s all bundled up in federal taxes. Living below that damn seemed cheap at the time. After it fails, we get to tally up the cost. But it’s not the lowly parking lot attendant that has to pick up the tab. It’s the rest of us not living below a damn.
Allow me to make a vaguely related analogy that you can easily pick apart: What if I can’t afford to get the breaks repaired on my car. It’s expensive, I can’t really deal with that right now. So a week later my breaks fail and I go crashing into a tree.
Who’s fault/responsibility is it?
Should I get a new car (replaced) because I couldn’t afford breaks? Who should pay to replace my car?
Cool. I appreciate that. I think state-run “education lotteries” are a bad idea, not because I oppose gambling, nor because I think I have some right to regulare what my neighbor does with his money, but because they are bait-and-switch. They’re promoted as giving more money to schools, but when actually implemented, the amount of money devoted to schools is in the long run constant or lower, the state taking away from the education fund an amount about equal to what the lottery puts in. Otherwise, I’d feel it’s “voluntary taxation” and support it.
Because some things are our corporate responsibility, because they are too large for any individual, or any non-governmental group, to successfully resolve. That’s an amoral, pragmatic answer. Disaster relief, national defense, even bailouts are something no private group is able to raise the capital to combat effectively. (Not that the government always does a good job – but that nobody else stands a chance of bringing the needed leverage to bear.)
You wish to choose which charities to give to, and not contribute to ones that don’t use the money appropriately, in your view. Fine. Are you saying that government aid is a form of charity?
A reasonable point. I’d point you to Robert Peel and Benjamin Franklin, who instituted public police forces and fire brigades respectively, and the reasons they did so. If only those who can afford to pay directly for police and fire protection get it, then the need for others to have help after they suffer losses increases. “An ounce of prevention…”
I’m okay with emack and such opting out - but he has to stop benefiting from roads and police services and all taxpayer-supported services at the same time. I don’t buy this “stop providing them and I’ll stop using them and paying for them” guff. He’ll have to head for an island (or possibly the far north) and remove himself physically from the tax-supported infrastructure that makes our society comfortable.
Some Canadians do this, heading to the U.S. and such. It has the potential to be a serious problem, but I have too much respect for individual rights to try to stop them. If they choose the stay and whine, though, I’ll exercise my individual rights to ridicule them for it.
Heh. Fat chance that this is true.
But again, you’re trying to restate my point.
I will gladly pay for what I use. If there are roads and services that I use, I will pay for them.
This isn’t about being isolated, it’s about paying my share of what I use, and having everyone else do the same.
And why is it considered whining for me to express a view you don’t share?
In the US, all taxation is voluntary, so no, no kernel of truth.
Wait, is this a world in which the dam was maintained or in which it wasn’t? In any case, it is simply not possible for every single person to be aware of every single source of possible risk. The world is too complex. That’s why we ameliorate bad outcomes by spreading them across society. The reason that the private insurance system is failing is that its base is not broad enough.
Also, in your world, there simply would not have been a dam, and it still probably would have been the cheapest place to live.
First of all, it’s not really costing you all that much. Second, if the costs do rise too high, then the only efficient way to deal with it is to solve it on a society-wide basis, not make those people who are so unfortunate to be left in that situation to bear all the burden. It wasn’t irresponsibility that made them choose that place to live, but rather the collective forces of history and society that made it their most viable option.
Okay, back to the OP: Taxes are theft.
If I want to go to an amusement park, I have to pay the admission, that’s sort of how life works.
If you want to go to the amusement park, but can’t afford it, tough shit, you’re going to suffer. Unless you can prove that it is some how my fault or my responsibility it’s not up to me to pay your admission. Nothing I’m doing is preventing you from obtaining money and purchasing your own ticket.
Part of having the capitalist life we enjoy is that there are rewards for earning money, such as going to an amusement park. If we start giving things away for free, the incentives are lost and capitalism breaks down.
So a system that takes my money, so that someone else can be comfortable, without benefiting me, is theft.
If you can show me that I can benefit too, I’m all for it.
If there is a package deal where 100 of us chip in for discounted tickets, and as a result a few people get in free, I’m okay with that. I benefit from the discounted tickets.
And if you think you’re clever by suggesting that we “wouldn’t even have money” you’re not. take a look at the US federal budget and see where the mint and federal reserve fit into things.
Like I said, I’ll pay it for the part I’m benefiting from.
If we want things like safer food, put the cost of [the failed] inspection in with the cost of food. Let me choose if I want to have federally inspected beef (at $1.99/lb +$2 inspection fee), or crap some guy found on the side of the road ($3.99/lb).
That way, if the federally inspected food keeps getting people sick, they’ll stop paying for a failed system. And conversely, the FDA will have a direct incentive to do it’s job properly.
The problem is that the more frequently the FDA fails, the less benefit I’m getting for my tax dollars.
It became whining when it was clear you weren’t interested in modifying your views even when presented with solid reasons to do so.
Frankly, it’s impossible to pay for just what you personally use. You benefit from your nation having a military, even if it never protects you personally from an invading army. You benefit from roads and railroads you never personally use because the goods you buy at your local stores arrive on them. You benefit from sewer lines that your poo will never travel, because it protects you from outbreaks of cholera that might start miles away and gradually come to your part of town. I don’t know if you have children, but your payment of school taxes helps the education of all children, which will come in handy when you get old and need some younger folk who went to medical school.
Your “fair share” isn’t some discrete slice that you can separate from the social pie.