NationStates Jolt Archive

Let the commies win. Raise the tax rate on everyone to 100%, let politicians spend everyone's money (because we know they are the brightest and most honest people to use it) and have zero accountability and responsibility. I will be making sure I vote Barry Hussein this November.

was there a point to this silliness?

Let the commies win. Raise the tax rate on everyone to 100%, let politicians spend everyone's money (because we know they are the brightest and most honest people to use it) and have zero accountability and responsibility. I will be making sure I vote Barry Hussein this November.

Surely you should be arguing to replace standard methods of government fundraising with a stringent tax on intelligent political debate. You, after all, would evidently be exempt

I will be making sure I vote Barry Hussein this November.

Can you promise me that between now and then you will get a rudimentary understanding about economics, politics and the candidates?

Let the commies win. Raise the tax rate on everyone to 100%, let politicians spend everyone's money (because we know they are the brightest and most honest people to use it) and have zero accountability and responsibility. I will be making sure I vote Barry Hussein this November.

Bwuh?

Well that was 30 seconds of reading through incoherent babble I'm never getting back.

Snip.

For pity's sake, erase that thing!

Let the commies win. Raise the tax rate on everyone to 100%, let politicians spend everyone's money (because we know they are the brightest and most honest people to use it) and have zero accountability and responsibility. I will be making sure I vote Barry Hussein this November.

Let's go over this, shall we?

1. The income tax would never go that high without the government officially announcing Communism, in which case they'd have the whole nation up in arms.

2. Once again, we aren't THAT stupid.

3. Richard Nixon is hated, GWB is hated for flushing the economy down the toilet, so on, and so forth.

4. You deserve the following image for that last remark:
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh165/reddcloudd/faildog.jpg

was there a point to this silliness?
Sadly, I've run into this way of thinking multiple times of late, usually along the lines of voting Democrat because then (according to the reasoning) an all Democrat Congress and president would declare the US to be socialist, they would then tax and spend everything away, surrender to all our enemies (Whomever they are) and pretty much make everyone so mad that the VERY next election everyone will vote Republican, Ronald Reagan will rise from the dead to become president again, and the good ol' US would be conservative forever and everything would be hunky dory!

No, I don't understand it either.

Why should he?

Because the guy deserves a seizure, but I don't! >_<

Why should he?
*collapses*

Let the commies win. Raise the tax rate on everyone to 100%, let politicians spend everyone's money (because we know they are the brightest and most honest people to use it) and have zero accountability and responsibility. I will be making sure I vote Barry Hussein this November.

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9251/worthlessqi7.jpg

http://jadn.com/~bob/audio/sadstrange.wav :D

blah blah blah trolling blah blah blah

http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/vschools/fail.jpg

Can you promise me that between now and then you will get a rudimentary understanding about economics, politics and the candidates?

His post pointed out that income tax is an ill effect on man's activity. Your reply implies you think taxing personal income is good which means you mustn't be familiar w/the rudimentary economics principle: gov. interference in the marketplace generates problems.

His post pointed out that income tax is an ill effect on man's activity. Your reply implies you think taxing personal income is good which means you mustn't be familiar w/the rudimentary economics principle: gov. interference in the marketplace generates problems.

Gods I love election years. They bring out all the under 50 post wonders to edumacate us silly liberals.

His post pointed out that income tax is an ill effect on man's activity. Your reply implies you think taxing personal income is good which means you mustn't be familiar w/the rudimentary economics principle: gov. interference in the marketplace generates problems.

Because the crash of 29 happened because of "too much" interference?

Because the crash of 29 happened because of "too much" interference?

Yep, the fucking commies did it, with their time machine.

Can you promise me that between now and then you will get a rudimentary understanding about economics, politics and the candidates?

That's asking a lot. :p

Let the commies win. Raise the tax rate on everyone to 100%, let politicians spend everyone's money (because we know they are the brightest and most honest people to use it) and have zero accountability and responsibility. I will be making sure I vote Barry Hussein this November.

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/carvey_perot_save.wav

:)

At least if everyone pays 100% tax it will be a flat rate. Take that, progressive taxation!

was there a point to this silliness?

Frustration.

His post pointed out that income tax is an ill effect on man's activity. Your reply implies you think taxing personal income is good which means you mustn't be familiar w/the rudimentary economics principle: gov. interference in the marketplace generates problems.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to make the same promise.

Your reply implies you think taxing personal income is good --

Would you prefer a system where everything was run by (utterly non-democratic) corporations, then? Because where do you think governments would get their money from if there was no taxation? From ass space?

It's really simple, really.

Less taxation = less money for the government to spend = worse public services.

And I almost forgot: ++

Would you prefer a system where everything was run by (utterly non-democratic) corporations, then?
*Snip*
Would you prefer a food system run by non democratic private farmers? :eek:

Oh wait...

Because where do you think governments would get their money from if there was no taxation? From ass space?
Of course, taxation must exist in SOME form, just preferably not the income tax.:(

The government did fine back in the early days of the US, and all they had was a tariff. I say we return the government back to that state. What say you?;)

Ah yes, the "Hussein" Obama meme plus the "communist" Obama meme. Well, I'm convinced.

His post pointed out that income tax is an ill effect on man's activity.
Ah yes, because education, police, fire, and emergency services, military, roads, R&D, and other government projects and responsibilities have totally RUINED the US to the point where it is nothing but a third world nation! :rolleyes:

Your reply implies you think taxing personal income is good which means you mustn't be familiar w/the rudimentary economics principle: gov. interference in the marketplace generates problems.
Rudimentary principle? Pfht, better start running now before one of the local economics wizards come by and spank you hard for THAT one.

The government did fine back in the early days of the US, and all they had was a tariff. I say we return the government back to that state. What say you?;)
The United States as a whole was much smaller in both terms of population and land when that was the case, not to mention the world was very, very different. Your proposal is naught but a pipe dream.

Would you prefer a food system run by non democratic private farmers? :eek:

That's slightly different. What I was talking about were things like privately owned police, criminal courts, jails... Not to mention the privatization of all basic infrastructure (roads etc. which require a lot of maintenance as well) and so on. Obviously this would lead to, for instance, corporations forcing you to pay for just using their roads - otherwise it wouldn't be profitable.

In the end you would pay more for the same you pay now in taxes, and could end up with even worse results. For instance... You use a road that's not used a whole lot and that's in need of some serious repairs? Oh poo! You're outta luck, it's not profitable to repair roads that're not used that much. No money in it, and it cuts into the bottom line!

As for food, as far as I know, all Western countries have food reserves of their own, which means that if the companies figured they wanna do something funny it wouldn't hurt the populace as quickly as they might like. And food can be imported. The companies hardly hold a monopoly. :p

Of course, taxation must exist in SOME form, just preferably not the income tax.:(

So uh, you want a VAT? Cuz that'd act sort of like an income tax, except you would only see it when you're actually buying something. Anything. You'd be like "WOOHOO NO INCOME TAX" and then "BOOHOO 50% VAT ON EVERYTHING :(" :p

The government did fine back in the early days of the US, and all they had was a tariff. I say we return the government back to that state.

The government had a lot less responsibilities back then. Do you really want to privatize everything it has its hands on? Military, police, courts, you name it?

I don't think it'd end very well for the common guy.

The United States as a whole was much smaller in both terms of population and land when that was the case, not to mention the world was very, very different. Your proposal is naught but a pipe dream.
True, true.*Sigh* Tariff only wouldn't work. I still say we could do without the income tax.

The government did fine back in the early days of the US, and all they had was a tariff. I say we return the government back to that state. What say you?;)

If by "did fine" you mean "managed to accomplish nothing outside of an occasional genocide", then yes, it did fine. Also, tariffs are a grotesque violation of the free market, far more so than an income tax.

OP Troll.
Trolly, trolly troll.
A prole with no soul with a hole for his goal.
How droll.

Because the crash of 29 happened because of "too much" interference?

AFAIK, nobody knows exactly why the 1929 market crash occurred, but if you have a viable theory, I'm sure we'd all like to hear it.

If by "did fine" you mean "managed to accomplish nothing outside of an occasional genocide", then yes, it did fine. Also, tariffs are a grotesque violation of the free market, far more so than an income tax.

I disagree. Income tax affects every individual(As we all know) taking away money and funneling it to government projects. WITHOUT the income tax, more people would spend more money, increasing the money that people who own businesses get, allowing them to take on more projects, allowing them to make more money, Ad infintum. HOWEVER, WITH the income tax, more things are handled by the government, reducing the role of the free market, and reducing the amount of things the free market CAN get involved in. Whenever the government has money, it seems to have an insatiable urge to grow. Hell, when it DOESN'T have money it feels it has a need to grow. But banks will only loan them so much, and slavery is outlawed.

I disagree. Income tax affects every individual(As we all know) taking away money and funneling it to government projects. WITHOUT the income tax, more people would spend more money, increasing the money that people who own businesses get, allowing them to take on more projects, allowing them to make more money, Ad infintum.

Because investment doesn't exist and everyone spends every dime they earn.

Edit: The bolded is also why tariffs are far more detrimental to a free market than the income tax.

Because the crash of 29 happened because of "too much" interference?

No, but too much interference sure did extend it.

Because investment doesn't exist and everyone spends every dime they earn.

Edit: The bolded is also why tariffs are far more detrimental to a free market than the income tax.
So... You're saying that something that affects every individual affects the free market less then a few taxes on, still cheaper, imports?

...

Wait a minute, WHAT?!?

Also, because investment never has ANYTHING to do with investing in buisnesses, and when people have more they don't spend more, and EVERYBODY invests. Right?

So... You're saying that something that affects every individual affects the free market less then a few taxes on, still cheaper, imports?

...

Wait a minute, WHAT?!?

Also, because investment never has ANYTHING to do with investing in buisnesses, and when people have more they don't spend more, and EVERYBODY invests. Right?

have you ever actually taken an economics class, or are you basing this all on how you think things work?

was There A Point To This Silliness?

Who Is John Galt ?

I disagree. Income tax affects every individual(As we all know) taking away money and funneling it to government projects. WITHOUT the income tax, more people would spend more money, increasing the money that people who own businesses get, allowing them to take on more projects, allowing them to make more money, Ad infintum. HOWEVER, WITH the income tax, more things are handled by the government, reducing the role of the free market, and reducing the amount of things the free market CAN get involved in. Whenever the government has money, it seems to have an insatiable urge to grow. Hell, when it DOESN'T have money it feels it has a need to grow. But banks will only loan them so much, and slavery is outlawed.
There are some massive problems with your statement. The most pressing though is the very large difference between what governments are and what businesses are. Governments cannot be run as businesses and cover areas where having a businesses run things would be catastrophic. Simply put, it comes down to do things: One, businesses can retreat, governments cannot. You can't simply declare bankruptcy for a country, or close down an under-performing city/state. A government cannot just say, "Well, this getting invaded thing was a bad idea, it's costing us too much money so we're going to go ahead and surrender." As an addendum to that, governments also have an obligation to service the governed wherever they may be. Businesses can choose to say that since the middle of Alaska doesn't have all that many people in it, they won't open a store to sell their wares, government doesn't have that kind of choice, it HAS to be there.

Two, because a government cannot retreat, it's the stability that businesses build upon. In areas where the government is not stable, you don't see much investment now do you? Businesses depend upon this stability as well, look at the current sub-prime loan crisis, the place the business community turned to for stability to guarantee an out from this mess was the US government.

So, yes, it's a beast, but one that is absolutely needed for our lifestyle. And it does need to be fed to do what it has to do, I'd much rather pay a few dollars out of my pay check each month than the thousands I would need to should it not be there or have its areas working under the private sector.

Because the crash of 29 happened because of "too much" interference?

And if it wasn't for pesky government interference we'd all be still eating Rat Burgers and Cockroach Dogs like Upton Sinclair used to write about, mmmmm Mmmmm!

Who Is John Galt ?

Who cares about John Galt?

Who is The Batman?

No, but too much interference sure did extend it.

Maybe, but if too much interference is bad, letting the market run amok is worse.

I are teh Confused....Who's Barry Hussein and where is he running?

Besides, Saddam wasnt communist if thats what your insinuating...and he was backed By the US...his mortal enemy Iran was supported by the USSR...

If your History goes back before '91 the War in Iraq makes no since...

But, provided this really was a real topic...No, im not giving my whole damn paycheck to Uncle Sam...he can go to hell...

Maybe, but if too much interference is bad, letting the market run amok is worse.

Your opinion. *Puts nose in air*

OK, a serious question...

In the United States, from 1951 to 1963, the income tax rate on taxable income over $400,000 for married couples (not counting possible deductions/exemptions) was between 87.2 and 92%*

This post-war period is largely considered an era of prosperity and growth.

Now I'm no economist, but based on the link below**, percentage of growth based on the previous year has slowed considerably since deregulation under Reagan, and while "recessions" are less frequent, actual growth has slowed.

Given that this data seems to undermine the traditional conservative argument that high taxation on the wealthy stifles economic growth, and considering that deregulation has seemingly stifled growth rates, how does the traditional conservative economic viewpoint continue to hold merit?

Obviously there are other historical and economic factors, but seriously...what gives??

* - http://truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php#fn-5

** - http://alfred.stlouisfed.org/series?seid=GDP&cid=106
(Set range to MAX, change units to Percent Change from Year Ago)

No, but too much interference sure did extend it.

Yeah, that's exactly what happened. It's only a coincidence that the market started recovering after the new deal was put in place.

Actually, I tallied it up once, and the percentage of unemployment dropped only slightly quicker during the war than it did during the new deal. Meaning, that WWII only had a small impact on something that would have eventually fixed itself.

Fact is, the majority of historians agree that the new deal did indeed help the economy, while the conservative side mostly mumbles that it helped in the short term but established a "welfare state" that went on into the future.

Yeah, that's exactly what happened. It's only a coincidence that the market started recovering after the new deal was put in place.

Actually, I tallied it up once, and the percentage of unemployment dropped only slightly quicker during the war than it did during the new deal. Meaning, that WWII only had a small impact on something that would have eventually fixed itself.

Fact is, the majority of historians agree that the new deal did indeed help the economy, while the conservative side mostly mumbles that it helped in the short term but established a "welfare state" that went on into the future.
This doesn't surprise me, but could I have a source for this please just so I can read it?

Yeah, that's exactly what happened. It's only a coincidence that the market started recovering after the new deal was put in place.

Actually, I tallied it up once, and the percentage of unemployment dropped only slightly quicker during the war than it did during the new deal. Meaning, that WWII only had a small impact on something that would have eventually fixed itself.

Fact is, the majority of historians agree that the new deal did indeed help the economy, while the conservative side mostly mumbles that it helped in the short term but established a "welfare state" that went on into the future.
:confused:
http://www.mrchoquette.com/unemployment.jpg

Your opinion. *Puts nose in air*

Hey, man, you don't have to rip off your nose and put it in the air just because we disagree!

I mean, you CAN, but you don't HAVE to.

Of course, taxation must exist in SOME form, just preferably not the income tax.:(

The government did fine back in the early days of the US, and all they had was a tariff. I say we return the government back to that state. What say you?;)

I say you fell for the same fallacy as my mom did when she said that back in the middle ages, peasants would pay 10% taxes and rose in rebellion, so we should definitely do the same now.

You do like your roads paved, your sewage system working, your police force not just working for the rich and your streets lit at night, don't you?

I disagree. Income tax affects every individual(As we all know) taking away money and funneling it to government projects. WITHOUT the income tax, more people would spend more money, increasing the money that people who own businesses get, allowing them to take on more projects, allowing them to make more money, Ad infintum. HOWEVER, WITH the income tax, more things are handled by the government, reducing the role of the free market, and reducing the amount of things the free market CAN get involved in. Whenever the government has money, it seems to have an insatiable urge to grow. Hell, when it DOESN'T have money it feels it has a need to grow. But banks will only loan them so much, and slavery is outlawed.

Let's look at it from the opposite angle, shall we?

No income tax = more for the citizen to spend, but also less for the government to spend = less public services (roads, street lights, police, courts, parks, schools, you name it)

You could do without an income tax. Switzerland does it, after all. However, their VAT is so horrific that is now actively discourages tourism. So not only is the government simply using a different method to get at the desperately needed tax money, by not going for income tax they've reduced one of the countries big industries.

I smell a troll! :)

But honestly, 100% is far too much. Not even Sweden had 100% income tax at its highest stage. I think maybe 30% to 50% is a much more reasonable number to experiment with. :)

So... You're saying that something that affects every individual affects the free market less then a few taxes on, still cheaper, imports?

...

Wait a minute, WHAT?!?


Yes. It does. Do you not understand the concept of a free market or something, where everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed? As such, something that effects some people but not others will have a far more detrimental effect on the existence of said free market than something that effects everyone.

Let's look at it from the opposite angle, shall we?

No income tax = more for the citizen to spend, but also less for the government to spend = less public services (roads, street lights, police, courts, parks, schools, you name it)

You could do without an income tax. Switzerland does it, after all. However, their VAT is so horrific that is now actively discourages tourism. So not only is the government simply using a different method to get at the desperately needed tax money, by not going for income tax they've reduced one of the countries big industries.

Hand it over to private companies. Don't go overboard on any specific tax.
I say you fell for the same fallacy as my mom did when she said that back in the middle ages, peasants would pay 10% taxes and rose in rebellion, so we should definitely do the same now.

You do like your roads paved, your sewage system working, your police force not just working for the rich and your streets lit at night, don't you?
No, back then peasants paid MUCH more and STILL didn't rebel. If I remember right, it was a 10% raise in taxes that pissed them off, and with how much they were already paying, well... They could've got more by begging.

I like my roads paved. By private companies. I like my sewage system working. Run by private companies. I like my police force not working just for the rich. SOME things need to keep with the government. I like my privately own streets to be lit on night.:)
Heikoku 2
Hey, man, you don't have to rip off your nose and put it in the air just because we disagree!

I mean, you CAN, but you don't HAVE to.
*Rips off nose and throws it in the air again* :D

I say you fell for the same fallacy as my mom did when she said that back in the middle ages, peasants would pay 10% taxes and rose in rebellion, so we should definitely do the same now.

You do like your roads paved, your sewage system working, your police force not just working for the rich and your streets lit at night, don't you?

I sure do. But I can't help but notice that half a trillion dollars every year goes not to any of those things, but to the laudable government 'services' of killing Iraqis and occupying their country, making and maintaining our ridiculous loads of nuclear, biological and chemical (not to mention conventional) weaponry.

Half a trillion dollars.

And that's not including the trillion dollars that the government just.... "loses" (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/05/18/MN251738.DTL). We're not talking "hey look at the sewers and roads and police and infrastructure we gave to you happy citizens!" we're talking, "Well, we meant to use that money to kill Iraqis, but come to think of it, I have no idea where it went LOL!"

That makes me distinctly less inclined to gush enthusiastic about giving huge chunks of my income to the government.

I like my roads paved. By private companies. I like my sewage system working. Run by private companies. I like my police force not working just for the rich. SOME things need to keep with the government. I like my privately own streets to be lit on night.:)
You must like paying far more for services than you do now, a lot more. You must also like not having services period.

Those are pretty odd, but, hey, whatever floats your boat.

Hand it over to private companies. Don't go overboard on any specific tax.

What an utterly idiotic idea. Lets allow corperations to put everything else (like education, protection via police, etc) behind profit. Brilliant:rolleyes:.


I also like not having to pay when a cop comes to invistage a robbery at my house or when the fire chief shows up to put out my burning house. I dont mind paying an income tax to fund those things, rather then fork over whatever price the corperation sets to catch the guy who killed my brother.

Unless of course you dont want poor people to be able to afford fire or police protection?


Dont answer that. I already know said answer. You free market worshippers are really all the same;)

Please, dear boy, shove your head in a well so you cannot vote. It will do us all a favor.

I dont mind paying an income tax to fund those things, rather then fork over whatever price the corperation sets to catch the guy who killed my brother.

And you don't mind that very little of your income tax goes to these things, while a whole lot of it goes toward killing Iraqi civilians? I mean, er, fighting ebil terrorism. Give me a corporation any day. Last I saw buying postage stamps doesn't fund war crimes.

And you don't mind that very little of your income tax goes to these things, while a whole lot of it goes toward killing Iraqi civilians? I mean, er, fighting ebil terrorism. Give me a corporation any day. Last I saw buying postage stamps doesn't fund war crimes.

Ill take the trade off. Id rather poor people be able to afford police and fire protection as well as an education.


Plus, I dont think Id want corperations cutting costs to enhance profits with things like police work.

But hey, some people maybe dont mind. And some people just dont care about poor people either.


As to your taxes funding war crimes and such, its not like private corperations are any better than the government in that department either. Ever heard of these guys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_USA?

Let the commies win. Raise the tax rate on everyone to 100%, let politicians spend everyone's money (because we know they are the brightest and most honest people to use it) and have zero accountability and responsibility. I will be making sure I vote Barry Hussein this November.

you knwo, if there was a candidate who seriously was communist and wasnt trying to hide it, hed not nly get my vote bit Id hack into the system to vote for him 1000 times in all states, thath way people like you would get proper education and would be raised by TV, and you might even become a good person, or if going Stalin you get killed in the first ethnick cleansing, eiter ways fine

:confused:
http://www.mrchoquette.com/unemployment.jpg

What the fuck happened in 1937?

That was quite possibly the worst abomination of the English language I have ever seen.

That was quite possibly the worst abomination of the English language I have ever seen.

Who are you talking to?

you knwo, if there was a candidate who seriously was communist and wasnt trying to hide it, hed not nly get my vote bit Id hack into the system to vote for him 1000 times in all states, thath way people like you would get proper education and would be raised by TV, and you might even become a good person, or if going Stalin you get killed in the first ethnick cleansing, eiter ways fine

That guy.

That guy.

Ah. Missed him.

Ill take the trade off. Id rather poor people be able to afford police and fire protection as well as an education.

Well, I for one don't like having a million deaths on my conscience.

Privatization doesn't necessitate "poor people can't afford it" anyway, so it's not an actual trade-off. There is no way a fire department, private or otherwise, is going to start suddenly picking and choosing between 'customers,' because you don't fight fires like that - it's just not how it's done. Firefighters specifically are not going to shrug and say, "Let's not put this fire out. The dude can't pay." And it's furthermore doubtful they'd operate strictly on a paying basis anyway, any more than the US Postal Service doesn't deliver mail to poor people.

Same with police, although there's room for more corruption there.

Plus, I dont think Id want corperations cutting costs to enhance profits with things like police work.

What, so government cutting costs is better? My state is burning down man. The fire department doesn't really have the resources. Could it have something to do with the government's tendency to just "lose" 2 trillion dollars?

I'm not joking here. The military "lost" 2 trillion dollars. Who's going to investigate them and find out and hold them accountable? People have already forgotten about it. Besides, it's the government, they would never fuck anyone over or mis-use their finances!


As to your taxes funding war crimes and such, its not like private corperations are any better than the government in that department either. Ever heard of these guys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_USA?

Those corporations would not be there without the Presidential authority, the support of Congress and at one point the support of the public itself. Nor, in fact, would they be there without that nifty little 500 billion dollar military which shattered (again) the Iraqi nation from the air and ground.

No one is suggesting that the military would be better as a privately funded organization. At least I'm not.

In any case, the military gets a gigantic share of those income taxes, so it wouldn't be appropriate to paint a picture where income taxes just goes to firefighting and teachers. (As should be pretty clear, not enough of it goes to those services. And one has no choice about it.)

What the fuck happened in 1937?
*Shrugs* I'd guess the new deal's starting effects began to sink into the long-term, but I'm just a little biased. :D

Capitalism=monopoly. Monopoly=totally unfair prices, wages hours, etc.

US economy run entirely by private sector=gigantic nuclear cluster fuck. And I think we all know what that equals......

Well, I for one don't like having a million deaths on my conscience.

If you feel like its really on your conscience, stop paying taxes, take a stand.

Privatization doesn't necessitate "poor people can't afford it" anyway, so it's not an actual trade-off.

In the past thats exactly what its meant. The US tried pure capitalism once. It failed.

There is no way a fire department, private or otherwise, is going to start suddenly picking and choosing between 'customers,' because you don't fight fires like that - it's just not how it's done. Firefighters specifically are not going to shrug and say, "Let's not put this fire out. The dude can't pay."

You know this how? Really, how?

Same with police, although there's room for more corruption there.

Private police forces only have been tried. They failed. Horribly.



What, so government cutting costs is better? My state is burning down man. The fire department doesn't really have the resources. Could it have something to do with the government's tendency to just "lose" 2 trillion dollars?

No, its not. But at least with the government we can vote for who is in charge and thus vote people who cut costs in unfavorable areas out of office. No such right exists with private industry.

I'm not joking here. The military "lost" 2 trillion dollars. Who's going to investigate them and find out and hold them accountable? People have already forgotten about it. Besides, it's the government, they would never fuck anyone over or mis-use their finances!

Yep. Its just the governement that misuses finances and such. Private industry is never corrupt or abusive with money. Enron? Whats that?


Those corporations would not be there without the Presidential authority, the support of Congress and at one point the support of the public itself. Nor, in fact, would they be there without that nifty little 500 billion dollar military which shattered (again) the Iraqi nation from the air and ground.

So vote that support it out of office. Something you can do with the government that you cant do with private industry.

No one is suggesting that the military would be better as a privately funded organization. At least I'm not.

So, why is it better to have the government pay for the military, but not social infastructer? I guess we just have totally different priotities.

In any case, the military gets a gigantic share of those income taxes, so it wouldn't be appropriate to paint a picture where income taxes just goes to firefighting and teachers. (As should be pretty clear, not enough of it goes to those services. And one has no choice about it.)

Which is why I vote for people who will try and change that.


Again, with the government's spending, when I dont approve, I can go out there, campaign, and maybe make a difference. No such option is so readily accessable with private industry. Especially if that private industry becomes a monoply, which is inevitable.


Really, this picture being painted of private industry being so superior to the government in terms of corruption, effeciency, and services, without any trade offs is really not going to work.

have you ever actually taken an economics class, or are you basing this all on how you think things work?

(Conservative Morality is a Libertarian. I hope this answers your question.)

Capitalism=monopoly.

What?

What?

Having Capitalism leads to monopolies.

Having Capitalism leads to monopolies.

Only with a lack of government regulation.

There is no way a fire department, private or otherwise, is going to start suddenly picking and choosing between 'customers,' because you don't fight fires like that - it's just not how it's done. Firefighters specifically are not going to shrug and say, "Let's not put this fire out. The dude can't pay."

The last time we tried a privatized fire department that is exactly what happened. Well, that and the "nice house, shame if a fire happened" thing.

The last time we tried a privatized fire department that is exactly what happened. Well, that and the "nice house, shame if a fire happened" thing.

Lies. Somehow it was the governments fault. Private Industry is infailable.

The last time we tried a privatized fire department that is exactly what happened. Well, that and the "nice house, shame if a fire happened" thing.

Who is this 'we' and where?

If you feel like its really on your conscience, stop paying taxes, take a stand.

No one ever made a "stand" by imprisonment for non-payment of federal income tax.

And it's not about "feeling" like they're on my conscience. They ARE. Yours too, unless you're so deluded that you think paying someone else to kill absolves you of any wrongdoing.

In the past thats exactly what its meant. The US tried pure capitalism once. It failed.

At no point did the US try "pure capitalism" as you are implying; the privatization of all government.

You know this how? Really, how?

Because firefighters aren't the sort. They're hard working, honest people who put their lives on the line for a good cause.

And because you can't just ignore one fire and successfully fight fire. Fire doesn't class-discriminate.


Private police forces only have been tried. They failed. Horribly.

Define "fail" and cite these attempts.

No, its not. But at least with the government we can vote for who is in charge and thus vote people who cut costs in unfavorable areas out of office. No such right exists with private industry.

Yes, you can choose a different company. It's done all the time. Boycotts, and just consumer preference.

And sure, we can vote for candidate A, who will make sure we never leave Iraq. Or candidate B, who promises we'll stay in Iraq. Or candidate C, who will never get elected so it doesn't matter what he says. Meanwhile, the death has already been done, the blood is spilled, and it was your money that made it possible.

Yep. Its just the governement that misuses finances and such. Private industry is never corrupt or abusive with money. Enron? Whats that?

And how many trillions of dollars did Enron "lose?"

Or OK, how many of the government have been prosecuted and punished in the same way that Enron was?

So, why is it better to have the government pay for the military

Because defense of the nation overall is something that, frankly, private companies are too small to do.

Of course, maybe that's because our idea of national "defense" involves invading foreign countries every other decade; a distinctly more costly endeavor. But a worthy one, I'm sure, for everyone's hard-earned tax dollars.

Which is why I vote for people who will try and change that.

Let me know how that works for everyone. Maybe if we vote enough, the dead will be raised back to life.

Again, with the government's spending, when I dont approve, I can go out there, campaign, and maybe make a difference.

Can you?

Especially if that private industry becomes a monoply, which is inevitable.

Nonsense. The government is effectively a monopoly itself, by definition. So the "inevitability" here, insofar as monopolies are held to be a bad thing, is that the government is a monopoly. Monopoly on the use of force, on the ability to (for example) drop nuclear weapons on innocent civilians.

Which the government would never do. I mean, which it has done in the past, and has a policy continuing this day of that being an "option," but.... oh, nevermind!

Really, this picture being painted of private industry being so superior to the government in terms of corruption, effeciency, and services, without any trade offs is really not going to work.

Yeah, it is. You can point at Enron as an example of Evil Business all you like. I can point at the Holocaust, at Stalin's purges, at Mao's "Great Leap Forward," at the Rape of Nanking, at the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of every surprise attack, every invasion. Government IS corruption.

There are 25+ million busineses in the US. There are relatively few governments in comparison, and every one of them is blood-stained. Particularly the one you're so keen on funding. You cannot pretend that you're just funding happy, uncorrupted police forces and teachers - you are funding Murder, plain and simple. Ignore that if you will... I really just can't.

Who is this 'we' and where?


Quite a few western countries. I remember the U.S. and the U.K. off the top of my head. I'm digging up sources right now.

Because firefighters aren't the sort. They're hard working, honest people who put their lives on the line for a good cause.

So firefighters are these magic people who are completely immune to corruption? Fuck that, that's the logic used to pretend that the U.S. never committed atrocities in Vietnam.

And because you can't just ignore one fire and successfully fight fire.

One of the most effective methods of fighting fires involves leveling everything around the fire and then ignoring it and letting it burn out.

Quite a few western countries. I remember the U.S. and the U.K. off the top of my head. I'm digging up sources right now.


Okay. Yeah this is something of an interesting issue to me.

So firefighters are these magic people who are completely immune to corruption?

No, but by the nature of the work they're less prone to be brutally uncaring assholes.

Fuck that, that's the logic used to pretend that the U.S. never committed atrocities in Vietnam.

It doesn't work for military personnel, whose job involves killing people and destroying things. And who were in Vietnam, draftees who didn't exactly join up out of any desire at all.

One of the most effective methods of fighting fires involves leveling everything around the fire and then ignoring it and letting it burn out.

True. But they don't bulldoze houses (if houses are in the way) with the people in them.

And they try to contain fires before they get to the part where they're burning down the entire city. Because as I said, fire doesn't discriminate, and firefighters of all people are painfully aware of that.

You must like paying far more for services than you do now, a lot more. You must also like not having services period.

Those are pretty odd, but, hey, whatever floats your boat.

Ah, but you wouldn't be paying more, you'd probably be paying slightly less, because if they hand it over to the private companies, then most people would want them to lower taxes. It evens out. Competition lowers the price of goods and services most of the time. The government can charge whatever it wants to, because it has no competition.

Ah, but you wouldn't be paying more, you'd probably be paying slightly less, because if they hand it over to the private companies, then most people would want them to lower taxes. It evens out. Competition lowers the price of goods and services most of the time. The government can charge whatever it wants to, because it has no competition.

Do you really think the taxes would be less than paying the company straight up? I mean, hundreds of millions of people pay taxes. Only a few million would need to ever directly deal with a company. Sounds like prices would be higher to me..

Ah, but you wouldn't be paying more, you'd probably be paying slightly less, because if they hand it over to the private companies, then most people would want them to lower taxes. It evens out. Competition lowers the price of goods and services most of the time. The government can charge whatever it wants to, because it has no competition.
California deregulated its power, prices shot through the roof. An article I read today stated that the US was in need of a $1 trillion dollar overhaul for critical infrastructure (Mind you, that was the estimate 5 years ago). How much do you think a company is going to charge to recoup that within a business quarter and show profit for it?

And no, competition might be a wonderful thing, but that assumes consumers can vote with their feet. If you have ONE road leading to your house, you don't get to choose who is going to charge less. When you have ONE sewer leading from your house, you don't get to choose where your waste goes to. And God help you if you do live out in the boonies because then you're just royally screwed.

Okay. Yeah this is something of an interesting issue to me.


It's difficult going. I know I read it somewhere, and I'm suspecting that it was in a book and not on the Internet. Which is a damn sight harder to track down. I've got a book on the Great Chicago Fire somewhere, maybe that's where I saw it mentioned. I know it was a problem in one of the great fires, I just don't recall which.

And it's furthermore doubtful they'd operate strictly on a paying basis anyway, any more than the US Postal Service doesn't deliver mail to poor people.


The USPS is not under an obligation to turn a profit. It manages to do so, but that's not its goal.

Because firefighters aren't the sort. They're hard working, honest people who put their lives on the line for a good cause.

Because these are firefighters who made it their career choice even though it was on government pay which can't be all that high. Now imagine if it was firefighters who did it for the paycheck. Besides, it won't be the firefighters themselves making the call as to when they will go. It will be the bean counters and executive officers who will take one look at the fire, realize that no one's paying, and deny the firefighters authorization to dispatch a team. If they do it without authorization, then they get fired and replaced by people who will take orders from the executive officers.

You're trying to take the firefighters of today and transplant them into a bizarro world where the rules are completely different. It doesn't work.

Funny stuff. The original poster's username suggests he's an Ohio State fan... and his post confirms it. :p

The USPS is not under an obligation to turn a profit. It manages to do so, but that's not its goal.

Right, so the same 'revenue neutral' thing could be used for other services.

I guess I just mean - I don't mind paying for police and firefighters, with taxation or - stamps and whatnot. (lul)

But I do mind the inevitable, unavoidable package I am also getting with that payment. Namely things that don't protect or serve me in any way - invading Iraq comes to mind, but it's certainly not the only thing.

Because these are firefighters who made it their career choice even though it was on government pay which can't be all that high. Now imagine if it was firefighters who did it for the paycheck.

I can't imagine anyone doing that just for the paycheck. Being a firefighter is hellish and there will always be easier, higher paying jobs for those looking for money. Even in the case of a private FD.
The people out there who do it, would do it for free. (Volunteer fire fighting, for example. Which is most likely how fire departments began in the first place.) Fuck, I would do it, if I didn't right now have to be concerned about my home and family.

Besides, it won't be the firefighters themselves making the call as to when they will go. It will be the bean counters and executive officers who will take one look at the fire, realize that no one's paying, and deny the firefighters authorization to dispatch a team. If they do it without authorization, then they get fired and replaced by people who will take orders from the executive officers.

Fire chiefs and such? These guys rise through the ranks. There are certainly bean counters and people with fucked up priorities working for the government, too, anyway.

Right, so the same 'revenue neutral' thing could be used for other services.


It could. But it wouldn't be privatization, which is the point I was trying to make.

I can't imagine anyone doing that just for the paycheck. Being a firefighter is hellish and there will always be easier, higher paying jobs for those looking for money. Even in the case of a private FD.


Being a mercenary is also hellish. You kill, and die, for cash. Yet it's a business that doesn't lack for people.


The people out there who do it, would do it for free. (Volunteer fire fighting, for example. Which is most likely how fire departments began in the first place.) Fuck, I would do it, if I didn't right now have to be concerned about my home and family.

You'll find a bucket brigade to be much less effective than say, fire engines and aircraft. Or for that matter, people in fire retardant suits carrying high pressure water vapor units.


Fire chiefs and such? These guys rise through the ranks. There are certainly bean counters and people with fucked up priorities working for the government, too, anyway.

Yes, but you won't find a bean counter in the government saying "no, you can't put out that fire, that guy didn't pay his taxes."

But you will find that happening when its a corporate run profit making business. You don't see security firms generously responding to crimes happening right on their doorstep if they're not paid to do it, do you?

Having Capitalism leads to monopolies.

So does socialism - in fact, I can think of far more government run monopolies than privately run monopolies.

But you will find that happening when its a corporate run profit making business. You don't see security firms generously responding to crimes happening right on their doorstep if they're not paid to do it, do you?
I don't believe in total privatisation, but just for argument's sake, the companies likely to be offering firefighting services are insurance companies, which may well have enough of an incentive to fight fires before they actually reach the insured property. Someone does end up paying, just as with publically funded services, and it doesn't necessarily have to be the person whose house is on fire right this moment.

You'll find a bucket brigade to be much less effective than say, fire engines and aircraft. Or for that matter, people in fire retardant suits carrying high pressure water vapor units.

Those are just for show. :p

That's slightly different. What I was talking about were things like privately owned police, criminal courts, jails... Not to mention the privatization of all basic infrastructure (roads etc. which require a lot of maintenance as well) and so on. Obviously this would lead to, for instance, corporations forcing you to pay for just using their roads - otherwise it wouldn't be profitable.

In the end you would pay more for the same you pay now in taxes, and could end up with even worse results. For instance... You use a road that's not used a whole lot and that's in need of some serious repairs? Oh poo! You're outta luck, it's not profitable to repair roads that're not used that much. No money in it, and it cuts into the bottom line!

As for food, as far as I know, all Western countries have food reserves of their own, which means that if the companies figured they wanna do something funny it wouldn't hurt the populace as quickly as they might like. And food can be imported. The companies hardly hold a monopoly. :p



So uh, you want a VAT? Cuz that'd act sort of like an income tax, except you would only see it when you're actually buying something. Anything. You'd be like "WOOHOO NO INCOME TAX" and then "BOOHOO 50% VAT ON EVERYTHING :(" :p



The government had a lot less responsibilities back then. Do you really want to privatize everything it has its hands on? Military, police, courts, you name it?

I don't think it'd end very well for the common guy.

America's original tax system was excise taxes: taxes added to certain goods. Even these were agreed to warily and opposed in the Anti-Federalist papers where it was predicted cider, liquors, and eventually most or all goods would be taxed by an unchecked congress. Tariffs were a northerner's means of taxing the south. Income tax didn't come round until after the 16th amendment which doesn't actually state individuals' income may be taxed but the IRS was set up to pretend it does. Roads, schools, and other infrastructure which've been mentioned are payed for by excise taxes on gas and other goods. All taxes the IRS takes are paid to the Federal Reserve as part of the Federal Government's debt obligations. If you want to know what you're talking about when economics comes up I recommend:

http://mises.org/
and
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7336845760512239683

If you want to know what you're talking about when economics comes up I recommend:

http://mises.org/
and
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7336845760512239683

Typical libertarians, confusing libertarian thought with economics.

Being a mercenary is also hellish. You kill, and die, for cash. Yet it's a business that doesn't lack for people.

Yes, but you can see how a desire to kill people is inherently different from a desire to stop fires from spreading?

You'll find a bucket brigade to be much less effective than say, fire engines and aircraft. Or for that matter, people in fire retardant suits carrying high pressure water vapor units.

True....

Yes, but you won't find a bean counter in the government saying "no, you can't put out that fire, that guy didn't pay his taxes."

You might well see a bean counter in the government saying 'you can't put out that fire, that area doesn't generate as much tax revenue as this other one.'

"tax revenue" isn't a phrase I just made up you know.

But you will find that happening when its a corporate run profit making business. You don't see security firms generously responding to crimes happening right on their doorstep if they're not paid to do it, do you?

They aren't under any legal obligation to do so. So make a legal obligation for the privatized agencies just as the public ones have a legal obligation. Government tends to be much better at regulating private business than it is at regulating... itself. Witness the response to Enron, versus the non-response to the Pentagon "losing" 2.2 trillion dollars.

You might well see a bean counter in the government saying 'you can't put out that fire, that area doesn't generate as much tax revenue as this other one.'

Can we no longer expect the response to be, "Fuck you. It's a fire, I'm putting it out"?

No, but by the nature of the work they're less prone to be brutally uncaring assholes.
You're right, of course. But there's nothing about the corporation that would own the firefighters that suggests the same. "You put out the fire in that house and we're not getting paid for it? I see. You're fired, then. Next!" Next thing you know, the fire department is made of firefighters who are brutally uncaring assholes, or at least, assholes who are uncaring enough that they'll ignore the tragedy as long as they get to keep feeding their families for another week.

I can't imagine anyone doing that just for the paycheck. Being a firefighter is hellish and there will always be easier, higher paying jobs for those looking for money. Even in the case of a private FD.
The people out there who do it, would do it for free. (Volunteer fire fighting, for example. Which is most likely how fire departments began in the first place.) Fuck, I would do it, if I didn't right now have to be concerned about my home and family.
Oh, I don't know. People will do a lot of things for money. And come to think of it, this in itself would be a potential problem of this system: the companies might have to dish out a lot of money to keep their 'employees' happy. Big health benefits, hazard pay, that sort of thing. That means charging their 'customers' a lot of money to make sure the fire trucks show up when they dial 911. I can almost guarantee you they would find enough people to do the job; the question is how much they'd have to fork out to do it. And the more they'd have to fork out, the more Americans would have to fork out.

Nobody's doubting the courageousness or valiance of today's firefighters, of course (or yours, for that matter). But if we lived in a world where there was money to be made from fighting fires, things would look a lot different. Who knows what would even happen to volunteer firefighters? Would they be declared unlawful, just like "volunteer policemen" (a.k.a. vigilantes) are now?

You might well see a bean counter in the government saying 'you can't put out that fire, that area doesn't generate as much tax revenue as this other one.'
Well, theoretically, perhaps. But I think that you could replace "government" with "corporation" and "tax revenue" with "profit" and you'd be a lot more likely to hear that sentence.

Income tax didn't come round until after the 16th amendment which doesn't actually state individuals income may be taxed but the IRS was set up to pretend it does.
That's a flat-out lie and if you've ever read the 16th Amendment you'd know it.

That's a flat-out lie and if you've ever read the 16th Amendment you'd know it.

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Sounds pretty clear cut to me.

Can we no longer expect the response to be, "Fuck you. It's a fire, I'm putting it out"?

I don't believe in either case the firemen's response wouldn't be exactly that. :)

If I seem overly enthusiastic about firefighters today, it's really because there's about a thousand of them out in the hills a few miles from my house, and have been since July 1st. They're exhausted and sweltering and risking their necks and such, and I can't believe that in this heat, and on July 4th, that cash is anywhere near a primary reason they're out there.

I don't believe in total privatisation, but just for argument's sake, the companies likely to be offering firefighting services are insurance companies, which may well have enough of an incentive to fight fires before they actually reach the insured property. Someone does end up paying, just as with publically funded services, and it doesn't necessarily have to be the person whose house is on fire right this moment.

Maybe so, but at best, it would mean they'd fires only if they show to become a citywide conflagration or dangerously close to their client properties. Otherwise, tough luck.

Yes, but you can see how a desire to kill people is inherently different from a desire to stop fires from spreading?

Adrenaline junkies?


You might well see a bean counter in the government saying 'you can't put out that fire, that area doesn't generate as much tax revenue as this other one.'

Not if he wants to keep his job. The fire service is expected to respond to any fire in range and is paid by taxpayer money to do so. A privately chartered fire fighting service can simply say "it's business" when someone else's home burns down.


They aren't under any legal obligation to do so. So make a legal obligation for the privatized agencies just as the public ones have a legal obligation. Government tends to be much better at regulating private business than it is at regulating... itself. Witness the response to Enron, versus the non-response to the Pentagon "losing" 2.2 trillion dollars.

So they are legally obligated to fight fires, even if they aren't paid to do it. So in essence, you are forcing them to be a corporate charity service? I imagine they would close their business if that were the case.

Adrenaline junkies?


That's pretty weak right there.

Not if he wants to keep his job.

LoL, fine. So the guy gets fired. Politics loves scapegoating; it's how the people in power manage to fuck over the people without power, who then gush sentimentally about how fantastic government is and how evil businesses are.

The fire service is expected to respond to any fire in range and is paid by taxpayer money to do so.

"Respond," yes. And prioritize. When you have - for example - hundreds of wildfires across the state, you can't concentrate all resources everywhere at once.

A privately chartered fire fighting service can simply say "it's business" when someone else's home burns down.

...and get sued to death.

So they are legally obligated to fight fires, even if they aren't paid to do it.

Doubtless it would work similar to the USPS does. You don't pay to receive mail, but you still pay for stamps, and there's still government involvement, but there's "revenue neutrality."

So in essence, you are forcing them to be a corporate charity service? I imagine they would close their business if that were the case.

No more than bucket brigades ever closed down for lack of cash.

I can't believe that in this heat, and on July 4th, that cash is anywhere near a primary reason they're out there.

No shit. Because the pay is crap.


However, what happens when it becomes a high paying job, and people start going there for the money?

That's pretty weak right there.

Well, let's be honest. Nobody ever signs up for firefighting service as a profession without at least some element of being paid factoring into it. If the firefighting service gets privatized, then anybody who wants to keep firefighting despite corporate executives saying "no", then they would have to do it outside of their auspices, i.e. the not so effective bucket brigade.


LoL, fine. So the guy gets fired. Politics loves scapegoating; it's how the people in power manage to fuck over the people without power, who then gush sentimentally about how fantastic government is and how evil businesses are.

I am working on the assumption that people in general don't like to get fired. A government bean counter can't do that without being fired. A corporate exec running it as a private business can.


"Respond," yes. And prioritize. When you have - for example - hundreds of wildfires across the state, you can't concentrate all resources everywhere at once.

And... so what? What does that have to do with a privatized system which doesn't have to respond to not even one of those wildfires when none of their clients are threatened?


...and get sued to death.


When a security firm gets successfully sued by a crime victim outside of their contract covered area, let me know. Otherwise, you don't have a leg to stand on.


Doubtless it would work similar to the USPS does. You don't pay to receive mail, but you still pay for stamps, and there's still government involvement, but there's "revenue neutrality."

And the purchase of stamps pay for the delivery of mail. Explain how that's going to work for fire fighting services outside contracted areas and still allow profit.


No more than bucket brigades ever closed down for lack of cash.

When a bucket brigade comes close to the effectiveness of a professional fire fighting service, let me know.

His post pointed out that income tax is an ill effect on man's activity. Your reply implies you think taxing personal income is good which means you mustn't be familiar w/the rudimentary economics principle: gov. interference in the marketplace generates problems.

Almost every major economic crisis this country has ever faced has been SOLVED by government interference and regulation.

I sure do. But I can't help but notice that half a trillion dollars every year goes not to any of those things, but to the laudable government 'services' of killing Iraqis and occupying their country, making and maintaining our ridiculous loads of nuclear, biological and chemical (not to mention conventional) weaponry.

Half a trillion dollars.

And that's not including the trillion dollars that the government just.... "loses" (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/05/18/MN251738.DTL). We're not talking "hey look at the sewers and roads and police and infrastructure we gave to you happy citizens!" we're talking, "Well, we meant to use that money to kill Iraqis, but come to think of it, I have no idea where it went LOL!"

That makes me distinctly less inclined to gush enthusiastic about giving huge chunks of my income to the government.

That "disappearing" money that you're talking about mostly goes to PRIVATE COMPANIES. You know, the same ones that you think should run almost every public service.

As for the war, it was the conservatives who started, and supported it. Most others have been against it for a while now.

So, if you were trying to set up some kind of coherent argument against the income tax, you just failed. Hard.

Maybe so, but at best, it would mean they'd fires only if they show to become a citywide conflagration or dangerously close to their client properties. Otherwise, tough luck.
Well, yeah, that's the idea behind a user pays system. And as long as the externalities would stay small, there wouldn't be anything necessarily wrong with that.

If you're interested, by the way, this is what I think is the biggest flaw in the system:
http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism1.html
http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism2.html
http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism3.html

Almost every major economic crisis this country has ever faced has been SOLVED by government interference and regulation.
Or rather, the end of every major economic crisis has coincided with government interference or regulation.

It's not a given that the interference was the reason that the crises ended, nor is it given that the crisis wouldn't have ended without it. Correlation doesn't imply causation, as they say.

Well, let's be honest. Nobody ever signs up for firefighting service as a profession without at least some element of being paid factoring into it.

Sigh. Yes, because except for slavery, every profession pays money.

If the firefighting service gets privatized, then anybody who wants to keep firefighting despite corporate executives saying "no", then they would have to do it outside of their auspices, i.e. the not so effective bucket brigade.

Bucket brigade... or, uh, another private firefighting service. You know there are 25+ million businesses in the US? Only 1 federal government however.

I am working on the assumption that people in general don't like to get fired. A government bean counter can't do that without being fired.

Yeah, actually, he can. He can in fact "lose" 2.2 trillion dollars and practically no one bats an eye, let alone punishes anyone.

And... so what? What does that have to do with a privatized system which doesn't have to respond to not even one of those wildfires when none of their clients are threatened?

...does the USPS only deliver to "clients?"

When a security firm gets successfully sued by a crime victim

Or, you know, the government. Are we still pretending that privatization means anarchy?

And the purchase of stamps pay for the delivery of mail. Explain how that's going to work for fire fighting services outside contracted areas and still allow profit.

Did you not read where I just said "revenue neutral?"

When a bucket brigade comes close to the effectiveness of a professional fire fighting service, let me know.

That's irrelevant. The example comes to show that people who fight fires do so because it needs to be done, not because of the cash (bucket brigades are not paid at all, are they?). The effectiveness has nothing to do with this point, that firefighters do so primarily for reasons other than cash.

No shit. Because the pay is crap.


However, what happens when it becomes a high paying job, and people start going there for the money?

Since when would firefighting become a high paying job? Privatization doesn't mean everyone suddenly becomes a CEO, and frankly CEOs and incorporation isn't automatically involved either.

And again, the people who do things purely for money are likely to find easier, less stupidly dangerous ways of doing it. Or, they die, or quit, because the nature of the job means you have to have more motivation than a paycheck and if you're not really motivated for a job like that, you're a danger and a candidate for a Darwin Award.

...does the USPS only deliver to "clients?"

The USPS is a government service. You seem to be neglecting that fact.

And again, the people who do things purely for money are likely to find easier, less stupidly dangerous ways of doing it. Or, they die, or quit, because the nature of the job means you have to have more motivation than a paycheck and if you're not really motivated for a job like that, you're a danger and a candidate for a Darwin Award.

By that logic no one would sell drugs.

The USPS is a government service. You seem to be neglecting that fact.

It is and is not.

By that logic no one would sell drugs.

Sigh. No, because drug dealers generally are greedy and dishonest and can't get their greedy needs from other jobs. And please don't try and tell me being a drug dealer is comparable to fighting fire in any meaningful way here. Yeah, they're both dangerous, but one is a lot more dangerous, a lot more uncomfortable, and there is no reason to suggest it will suddenly become as high paying as the other.

No one has mentioned the Laffer curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve) yet? "Neither a 0% tax rate nor a 100% tax rate will generate government revenue," the latter of which because there is no incentive to do legitimate, taxable work if the tax rate is 100%.

No one has mentioned the Laffer curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve) yet? "Neither a 0% tax rate nor a 100% tax rate will generate government revenue," the latter of which because there is no incentive to do legitimate, taxable work if the tax rate is 100%.

Why mention the Laffer Curve? No one has any damn idea where the high point is. And this thread has gotten to be derailed to be about the morality of taxation in general, it looks like.

Cthulufatgn,
I'm corrected. The wording is general enough to include individual's incomes though it doesn't say "citizens personal earnings". However
givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm

Mandozia,
In 1906 there was a bank panic. In 1913, the Federal government approved of the Federal Reserve 's mobilization. The Federal Reserve then caused the Great Depression and stole gold from Americans through presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=14509
The shifts in the housing market correlate directly to the prime rate's manipulation. What economic problems, greater than the first and second Great Depressions of America, has the government saved its' citizens from?

Cthulufatgn,
I'm corrected. The wording is general enough to include individual's incomes though it doesn't say "citizens personal earnings". However
givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm


Flat-out lies. The 16th Amendment was properly ratified.

Let the commies win. Raise the tax rate on everyone to 100%, let politicians spend everyone's money (because we know they are the brightest and most honest people to use it) and have zero accountability and responsibility. I will be making sure I vote Barry Hussein this November.

Because I, and not the government, worked hard for my money, and I have bills to pay and a mouth to feed, and when the government gets its grubby little (Ha!) hands on it, it's not gonna pay my bills or buy me food; I have to do that myself.

THAT is why we should not have a 100 (or even 50, for that matter) percent income tax rate.

let politicians spend everyone's money (because we know they are the brightest and most honest people to use it) and have zero accountability and responsibility.

Surely you must be joking. The 535 (insert your own uncharitable adjectives here) politicians we have in DC will spend it on themselves and getting re-elected for the rest of their lives. No thank you. I'd just as soon spend (or better yet, save) my money myself as let some money-grubbing politician spend it.

They see me trollin...

Oh **** the Paultards are out now.

Thanks alot! :headbang:

His post pointed out that income tax is an ill effect on man's activity. Your reply implies you think taxing personal income is good which means you mustn't be familiar w/the rudimentary economics principle: gov. interference in the marketplace generates problems.

And now let's move on to the second half of the first semester in "economics, 101".

You could do without an income tax. Switzerland does it, after all. However, their VAT is so horrific that is now actively discourages tourism. So not only is the government simply using a different method to get at the desperately needed tax money, by not going for income tax they've reduced one of the countries big industries.

Huh? Our VAT is... what, 1/3 of VAT in the EU? Also, income tax. I distinctly remember paying tax based on my income, so what country are you talking about? Of course, it's not as insane as German taxes, but that's not difficult to do, right?

edit:

VAT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VAT

Standard /Reduced
Germany 19% 7%
Switzerland 7.6% 3.6% or 2.4%

100% income tax bad. No income. Bad. Communism. Bad. This thread. Bad.

Let the commies win. Raise the tax rate on everyone to 100%, let politicians spend everyone's money (because we know they are the brightest and most honest people to use it) and have zero accountability and responsibility. I will be making sure I vote Barry Hussein this November.

You obviously don't understand communism. It isn't about "tax rates" it's about getting ratassed on vodka and trying to destroy Freedom.

I might try for a worse definition a little later. I'm only half-awake and can't muster the Stupid for it.

You obviously don't understand communism. It isn't about "tax rates" it's about getting ratassed on vodka and trying to destroy Freedom.

I might try for a worse definition a little later. I'm only half-awake and can't muster the Stupid for it.

You obviously don't understand he's joking.

California deregulated its power, prices shot through the roof. An article I read today stated that the US was in need of a $1 trillion dollar overhaul for critical infrastructure (Mind you, that was the estimate 5 years ago). How much do you think a company is going to charge to recoup that within a business quarter and show profit for it?

And no, competition might be a wonderful thing, but that assumes consumers can vote with their feet. If you have ONE road leading to your house, you don't get to choose who is going to charge less. When you have ONE sewer leading from your house, you don't get to choose where your waste goes to. And God help you if you do live out in the boonies because then you're just royally screwed.
Don't be so quick to condemn deregulation. The airline industry and the telephone industry are two examples of how deregulation drastically lowered prices and it was competition that did the trick.

California is a terrible example of how to deregulate... They did just about everything possible to guarantee that natural gas deregulation would fail. Primarily, the State forgot about the forces of supply and demand, but specifically...

Big mistake No. 1: In the 1996 deregulation, investor-owned utilities such as Con-Ed and PG&E were required to sell most of their power generating plants to other private companies, and to become buyers of wholesale electric power.

Big mistake No. 2: While deregulation mandated that utilities buy their power on the open market and pay market prices, it barred them from passing on increases to their customers until at least March 31, 2002.

Oops!

Georgia is a much better example of how a public utility should be deregulated. It was free-for-all competition in 2000 and there are still several strong competitors in the market.

So with only one gas line and one telephone line into my house, I have quite a bit of competitive choice. Competition is a good thing and it can work for utilities --- so long as the rules of supply and demand are followed.

Sigh. Yes, because except for slavery, every profession pays money.

And people have to eat. That means employment. People who will stay in a private firefighting service will be ones who don't get themselves fired. And that means not offering free firefighting without executive say so.


Bucket brigade... or, uh, another private firefighting service. You know there are 25+ million businesses in the US? Only 1 federal government however.


And so what? You think that if people can't afford firefighting protection services, they'll magically get the money to do so if another one opens up?

And again, a bucket brigade will be nowhere near as effective as a properly outfitted service.


Yeah, actually, he can. He can in fact "lose" 2.2 trillion dollars and practically no one bats an eye, let alone punishes anyone.

So who's this "he"? And you've yet to show any instance of government branch failure to provide its specified service, not backed by courts, being passed off as "tough luck, you don't make enough tax money".


...does the USPS only deliver to "clients?"


The USPS is a delivery service. It delivers to wherever a client specifies in its range of operation. It doesn't deliver to clients. It doesn't deliver for free. Try again. Less square pegs in round holes.


Or, you know, the government. Are we still pretending that privatization means anarchy?


Now you're just avoiding the question.


Did you not read where I just said "revenue neutral?"


You won't find a profit making organization even attempting to stay revenue neutral.


That's irrelevant. The example comes to show that people who fight fires do so because it needs to be done, not because of the cash (bucket brigades are not paid at all, are they?). The effectiveness has nothing to do with this point, that firefighters do so primarily for reasons other than cash.

And what this translates to is less successfully fought fires, more property damages where people can't afford it, and more lives lost. Congratulations, you've started the process of burning down slums.

You obviously don't understand he's joking.

Since some posters are heroically attempting to make a real debate on the subject, let's not have the poo-fight here, huh?

He who at R'lyeh sleeps,
I was convinced the 1st statement was a lie b/c I reread the 16th amendment. Cite the ratifying papers to prove your second argument.

Non-Aligned States,
An example of a gov. branch failing to supply it's service and the gov. response being "we haven't stolen enough from taxpayers yet to pay them to do well what the taxpayers want to pay them to do". video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9069323583494421392&q=%22stupid+in+america%22&ei=11hxSMLYCoWqrgLiidm4AQ

He who at R'lyeh sleeps,
I was convinced the 1st statement was a lie b/c I reread the 16th amendment. Cite the ratifying papers to prove your second argument.


Scroll down to the 16th Amendment. (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/conamt.html) It mentions what states ratified it and when.

He who at R'lyeh sleeps,
I was convinced the 1st statement was a lie b/c I reread the 16th amendment. Cite the ratifying papers to prove your second argument.
Benson has been shown to be wrong many times and called wrong by the courts.

Here's the details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments#Benson_contentions

Benson has been shown to be wrong many times and called wrong by the courts.

Here's the details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments#Benson_contentions

He's been called worse than wrong. His arguments have been termed frivolous, which is basically court speak for "they suck so hard they're not even arguments".

He's been called worse than wrong. His arguments have been termed frivolous, which is basically court speak for "they suck so hard they're not even arguments".
True, but I couldn't spell frivolous and I was too lazy to go look it up. :p

Cthulu,
Several of the states rejected the amendment. Ratification is boolean. The situation as explained under "the taxers advantage" http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=950CE5DF1438E033A25756C1A96E9C946897D6CF&oref=slogin
is deception. The ratification process is the rejection process. The process is to decide. If nays are ignored and a proposal is eternally resubmitted than every one eventually passes and nays are meaningless because the proposal is not abandoned. When the 16th amendment was rejected and did not get enough states approval it failed. After-rejection ratifications are invalid.

Nervun,
Reading through that wiki page a pattern emerges: the government says "I agree w/myself; you're wrong; if anyone disagrees w/me like you do I'll punish him more". I'ven't read 'em all yet but this injustice has been most apparent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments#Thirteenth_Amendment
"it's not involuntary servitude when we press you to work for us against your will. Now shut up or we'll drive you harder."

Cthulu,
Several of the states rejected the amendment. Ratification is boolean. The situation as explained under "the taxers advantage" http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=950CE5DF1438E033A25756C1A96E9C946897D6CF&oref=slogin
is deception. The ratification process is the rejection process. The process is to decide. If nays are ignored and a proposal is eternally resubmitted than every one eventually passes and nays are meaningless because the proposal is not abandoned. When the 16th amendment was rejected and did not get enough states approval it failed. After-rejection ratifications are invalid.
There is no provision in the Constitution for your claim, it is without merit.

Nervun,
Reading through that wiki page a pattern emerges: the government says "I agree w/myself; you're wrong; if anyone disagrees w/me like you do I'll punish him more". I'ven't read 'em all yet but this injustice has been most apparent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments#Thirteenth_Amendment
"it's not involuntary servitude when we press you to work for us against your will. Now shut up or we'll drive you harder."
Let's see here, whom to trust, learned men and women whose job it is to interpret the laws and Constitution of the United States and who have a proven track record of telling the government that it is wrong, or a bunch of tin foil hat types who just want to get out of paying their taxes.

ALL the arguments were soundly rejected using legal basis and none were noted as "Because I say so". In other words, you're rejecting the courts not because they have bad arguments (They do not), but because you just didn't like how they ruled.

Sorry, you still don't have a leg to stand on here. The 16th was properly ratified and you still have a legal obligation to pay your taxes.

:headbang:
Nervun,
The nature of a decision is taken for granted; it didn't need explained in the constitution. If only ratifications counted then an amendment couldn't be rejected.
"tin foil hat types" ad hominem "who just want to get out of paying their taxes." poisoning the well

Let the commies win.
I agree comrade.

:headbang:
Nervun,
The nature of a decision is taken for granted; it didn't need explained in the constitution. If only ratifications counted then an amendment couldn't be rejected.
"tin foil hat types" ad hominem "who just want to get out of paying their taxes." poisoning the well

You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

:headbang:
Nervun,ext reads
The nature of a decision is taken for granted; it didn't need explained in the constitution.
Ah, no. See, it DOES have to be explained in the Constitution, just saying "Well, they MEANT this" doesn't wash, that's why there are certain holes in the Constitution, such as an inability to take anything out of it or for states to leave the Union. The texts reads:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate

Nowhere in there is ANY mention of a time limit or being invalid if rejected and then accepted, something SCOTUS confirmed in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleman_v._Miller ) which leaves it up to Congress alone to decide on time limits and how a ratification is handled. Unless you have some writings from the framers that say otherwise, your argument is still without merit.

If only ratifications counted then an amendment couldn't be rejected.
Ah yes, and that is why there have been four amendments that have passed the Congress and submitted to the several states that have failed to pass. :rolleyes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Proposed.2C_but_unratified.2C_constitutional_amendmen ts

"tin foil hat types" ad hominem "who just want to get out of paying their taxes." poisoning the well
No, on the nose. The arguments brought forth by these guys all seem to center in on the notion that somehow the Federal Government has tricked the several states, the Congress, and the People at large into paying income taxes when anyone who looks at the process the 'right' way can see that what is being done is illegal. Thankfully, they (The tax avoiders since for the most part, most of them have attempted to avoid their taxes, many of whom have spent time or are currently in jail for that) are they to point out the missing periods or other strange information. The fact that their arguments have been soundly rejected by the courts as being stupid as well as by lawyers and other non-government people doesn't matter. They've got the Truth!

You might as well start playing the X-Files theme.

Nope, I hit the nail square on the head.