Hi,
Down the road, teasing tigers.
I believe opposing council would drag himself to his feet and say, "Asked and answered."
I don't think anyone here is denying that. The question is whether what you are getting in return is worth what you are paying the government to give it you, or if the free enterprise system could do it better. An associated, but slightly different question is, if government is the best supplier of a service, at what level of government should that service be supplied.
That doesn't make sense. The cost to supply a service is the same, independent of who pays for it. The need for that service, also. Thus, if each person payed for the service he received, it would come out to exactly the same as if the population as a whole shared the cost. It is not a matter of income.
It is not a matter of "there wouldn't be money enough to keep it running", it is a matter of the individuals not being able to pay for the service that they, individually, need. And that hurts everybody. Let me give you a personal example.
The treatment for my leukemia has run to, approximately, one and a half million dollars. I have nowhere near that amount of money. But I do have insurance. Now, insurance is basically a large group of people, each betting against himself. The 'winners' get the money. It allows people to get medical treatment that they could otherwise not afford. But it does a lot more than that. The treatment I received was not handed down from on high. It had to be developed. If, of all the people who came down with leukemia, only those that could afford millions could be treated, then there wouldn't have been enough people or money to develop the treatment. So, insurance saved my life two ways. It made it possible for me to get the treatment, and it made developing the treatment possible in the first place.
Now, my example, repeated many times, is a good argument for insurance. But who should supply that insurance? And should we *have* to buy it? Should we have the complete freedom to chose? And what should society do with those who chose not to and then need the services? Is it right to demand that everyone should be insured because everyone shares the cost for those who are not? Is it socially acceptable to allow those who chose not to have insurance to 'pay' for their stupidity -- should we just let them die? If everyone has to have insurance, is it better supplied by the free market, or by the government? If by the government, should it be federal, state, county, other (some kind of special districting)? If the government is supplying everyone with insurance, do we need insurance at all, or should we just socialize the health industry?
Now, take all of that, and think of education, roads, police, fire, retirement, the military, etc., etc.
Your arguments are, at best, shades of gray. The problem covers the complete color spectrum.
"The government's job" is precisely what this discussion is about. Once that's determined, then the cost to run the country is established. That, in turn (and the government's position on deficit) determines what taxes are needed and where they are spent.
As to kicking them out, who determines if they are doing it right? Indeed, what is 'right'? Is it the will of the people? That's mob rule. Is it some higher good? That's elitism or theocracy, depending on whether you take 'higher' straight or with branch water. And how do you kick them out? Popular vote? It has been shown, over and over again, that the popular vote is usually bought by whoever spends the most. Insurrection? You'd better have the numbers, 'cause they have the amps.
"Every real problem has a simple, easy to understand, wrong answer."
--Pete
(06-11-2010, 07:30 PM)Alliera Wrote: Where's Penn & Teller when you need them?
Down the road, teasing tigers.
Quote:No shit employers "compete at the gross wage level", that's the wage they have to pay! What is being said is that they don't exist in a vacuum. You do not calculate wages without taking into account taxes.
Yes, if you have country X and country Z, with equal wages, but only country X have taxes, citizens from country Z will have more disposable income.
What you're ignoring is that they will also have more things to spend money on. Education, road maintenance, health care, elder care -- all those things paying taxes address.
I believe opposing council would drag himself to his feet and say, "Asked and answered."
Quote:We don't pay taxes because governments are greedy people who are just out to get you and make you into a wage-slave; we pay taxes because we get something in return.
I don't think anyone here is denying that. The question is whether what you are getting in return is worth what you are paying the government to give it you, or if the free enterprise system could do it better. An associated, but slightly different question is, if government is the best supplier of a service, at what level of government should that service be supplied.
Quote:Yes, often enough a lot of the taxes you pay do not affect you personally at the moment you pay them, but that's the nature of the system. If you only paid for what you personally needed, the system couldn't exist; there wouldn't be money enough to keep it running.
That doesn't make sense. The cost to supply a service is the same, independent of who pays for it. The need for that service, also. Thus, if each person payed for the service he received, it would come out to exactly the same as if the population as a whole shared the cost. It is not a matter of income.
It is not a matter of "there wouldn't be money enough to keep it running", it is a matter of the individuals not being able to pay for the service that they, individually, need. And that hurts everybody. Let me give you a personal example.
The treatment for my leukemia has run to, approximately, one and a half million dollars. I have nowhere near that amount of money. But I do have insurance. Now, insurance is basically a large group of people, each betting against himself. The 'winners' get the money. It allows people to get medical treatment that they could otherwise not afford. But it does a lot more than that. The treatment I received was not handed down from on high. It had to be developed. If, of all the people who came down with leukemia, only those that could afford millions could be treated, then there wouldn't have been enough people or money to develop the treatment. So, insurance saved my life two ways. It made it possible for me to get the treatment, and it made developing the treatment possible in the first place.
Now, my example, repeated many times, is a good argument for insurance. But who should supply that insurance? And should we *have* to buy it? Should we have the complete freedom to chose? And what should society do with those who chose not to and then need the services? Is it right to demand that everyone should be insured because everyone shares the cost for those who are not? Is it socially acceptable to allow those who chose not to have insurance to 'pay' for their stupidity -- should we just let them die? If everyone has to have insurance, is it better supplied by the free market, or by the government? If by the government, should it be federal, state, county, other (some kind of special districting)? If the government is supplying everyone with insurance, do we need insurance at all, or should we just socialize the health industry?
Now, take all of that, and think of education, roads, police, fire, retirement, the military, etc., etc.
Your arguments are, at best, shades of gray. The problem covers the complete color spectrum.
Quote:The government's job is to decide where and what to spend your taxes on, and if they're not doing it right, you kick them out and get someone new.
"The government's job" is precisely what this discussion is about. Once that's determined, then the cost to run the country is established. That, in turn (and the government's position on deficit) determines what taxes are needed and where they are spent.
As to kicking them out, who determines if they are doing it right? Indeed, what is 'right'? Is it the will of the people? That's mob rule. Is it some higher good? That's elitism or theocracy, depending on whether you take 'higher' straight or with branch water. And how do you kick them out? Popular vote? It has been shown, over and over again, that the popular vote is usually bought by whoever spends the most. Insurrection? You'd better have the numbers, 'cause they have the amps.
"Every real problem has a simple, easy to understand, wrong answer."
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?