Not Yours to Give

[SwissMercenary]

I apologise for how disjointed my posts are, but C'est la vie. Edit: Quotes are for some reason not working.

[quote name='kandrathe' date='Mar 6 2007, 04:03 PM' post='125291']But, what roasts your rooster is that the government takes most of your apples to give to tragic cases who may have done nothing while you busted your butt in toil.
[/quote]

I think you've came to the conclusion a few months back that you don't have a problem with the homeless being given a bed... As long as it's not too comfortable. Likewise, food, as long as whatever cheap slop they get is only enough to keep them on their feet. So that they seek to improve their lot. I'm in agreement with such a policy.

In that case, the government wouldn't need to take half your apples away to fund something like that. More like one out of a hundred.

That adresses your 'tragic cases who may have done nothing.' I don't believe they should get much. I do believe that the money that they currently get could be better spent. That's something that... I have to examine on a case by case basis, before passng judgement.

Now, what about the 'tragic cases who just ended up out-of-luck,' like the fire victims? What about those that got taken advantage of - our roads? What about community youth programs, that encourege children to be active?

That's where most of that half of the apples goes to. Well, that, and healthcare, come to think of it (Which is much in the 'keep the poor bum alive' area, although it's something that 'benefits' everyone, at least here.)

think I clarified that in a different post. My property taxes pay for the bulk of the government in my locality, while the bulk of State and Federal taxes pays for entitlement programs.

Entitlement programs? So, I suppose that means disaster relief, welfare, and community programs, such as youth centres? I suppose Canadian healthcare isn't considered an 'entitlement program', considering that it benefits everyone equally. So, is that it? I think you might find that what I've just listed isn't the biggest slice of the apple pie on the block.

I think there has been a slow erosion of federalism

Wasn't that the entire point of the American Civil War?

slow replacement of it with a growing kleptocracy.

I'd say that it's probably just more publicised these days, then it was a hundred years ago. Probably.

The tax burden is not equally distributed, such that the middle class pay the most punitive taxes. The poor and lower middle classes pay nothing, and the rich do complain, and *are* unfairly burdened but are not "suffering" in a way that would make anyone care.

Possibly the reason the middle class pays the most of the tax pie, is because most of the middle class is most of the country.

My sister, a very rich socialist, once said "I am rich and I should pay 50% of my earnings in taxes". I don't think she understands freedom. I am not even opposed to having a safety net, but more things should be States issues, or local issues and not managed from Washington.

Freedom? I'm not trying to be offensive here, but the government does quite a lot for her, and you. Not nearly as much as it does to the welfare bum next door, now, and it doesn't do it's job all that well, but this isn't a black and white 'freedom vs slavery'.

Here is an example, why should all the citizens of the US pay for the rebuilding of a city that is 40 feet below sea level, built in river delta, and at high risk of being swamped by a large hurricane?

I don't know. Why are you asking me? Frankly, in my mind, the people affected should have been given some money, and a strong recommendation to collect whatever stuff that's still salvageable, and not come back. Disaster relief in an area like that should be a one-shot deal. If you want to come back to live in a swamp, after being bailed out once, on your head it is.

I think usable roads are a government expense in promoting commerce, and I also would have no problem making those roads Toll Roads such that those who use them pay for them.

This isn't a commercial road, which is probably why the Board of Economic Development isn't moving on sending us any apples. There's no commercial reason to repair it - except that it would be devastating to our 99% - residential municipality if we lose it.

Making it a toll road has crossed people's minds, but it won't do anything to help matters on a large scale. For one thing, if you had a nature recreation area near you, but it was on a toll road, you'd probably choose to drive to a different one, or even worse, stay home. More drivers on the road. More automobile emissions. Less people using our naturescape for recreation. Less people in the community being active in such a way. Government investment into maintaining the recreation area down the drain. We might make a little bit of money on the road, we might get it fixed, we might stop further damage from occuring... But all it means is that everyone else will pay for the road anyways. Except they'll pay for it in ways you can't measure in dollars.

Not to mention that if we were to be consistent with a 'pay on use' policy, every road in the country would have to be a toll road.

Come to think of it, that might cut down on traffic, a bit... :rolleyes:

Oh, right, we tax gasoline. Consider that a 'cumilative road toll', eh?

For the record, I live on a cul-de-sac, fourty meters away from the road in question. I'd love to see nothing more then that road be used exclusively by the people living here. Of course, I'd also love to own a pony.

I disagree on the nature of people. There are some who are greedy, but I find the majority of people are compassionate. I think this is why people are not really upset with the government taking away peoples money to give away for "noble" causes. I am not opposed to those taxes that are used to run the government, defend the nation, regulate and promote commerce, or provide for the general welfare.

So what's left?

But, these things must benefit all (or at least a vast majority in every State) those who contribute. I also believe the tax burden should be shared equally, as a flat percentage.

Now, if anything, your example of not giving up the apples and ending up in the gulag is applicable here. You've got 100 apples. I've got 50 apples. Joe has 20 apples. The cost of living is 15 apples. You can afford to give 50 apples. I can afford to give 25 apples. Joe can't afford to give 10 apples. He can either be dragged off to a gulag, or end up on the street.

The people who would benefit from a equalised tax rate would be the upper-middle class - the people who would not would be the lower class. For the middle class - the majority of us, things would remain the same.

It's a question of 'less relative harm to a smaller group of people' or 'more relative harm to a larger group of people,' as it's less of a deal for you to give up 50 apples, instead of 40, but more a deal to Joe, to give up 10 apples, instead of 5. There's also more Joes then people like you around.

Whichever way you look, taxes are all about balancing harm vs benefit to various groups of people. Frankly, I'd go with the 'less relative harm to a smaller group of people' - within reason.

I would also transition the burden of taxation from "Income" based to "Consumption" based to promote investments, savings, and conservation.

I'm no economist, and as much as I don't like consumerism or Reaganomics, that might not be the best way to stimulate the economy.

Ok, if it works for government, then why not the private sector, or persons? We pool all the money for all the people or businesses in a town, and then divide the pie evenly.

As soon as I can vote for the direction those businesses or persons are going, and a system of checks and balances appears, why not? Oh, right, because then they are no longer unaccountable businesses or persons, they become an accountable government.

That's my pie in the sky, at least.

The government has the right to reach into your pocket and take what it deems appropriate for giving to people it deems more needy than you.

This is communism. If I don't want any pie and I refuse to give you my apples you send me to the gulag.

No, that's socialism. Communism is when it takes everything, and gives everyone the same, need or greed be damned. The reason it doesn't work, is because it lacks the incentive for anyone to work. (And let's not talk about Stalinism or Marxism, or Leninism, here, okies?) That's also the reason why extremely unbalanced taxation brackets don't work. However, I do not believe that paying only ~30% income tax when earning 50,000/year removes incentive to work harder, and pay ~40% income tax when earning 80,000/year.

As for the apple pie, you do want some odd 70-80% of it (Police, military, NHS (If it applies), fire, transportation, regulatory commitees, some welfare, etc).