02 Mar 13
Originally posted by sh76Taxation is a necessary evil. Government needs to be funded. Question is how, and how much. Evils, even necessary ones ought to be minimized. If we limit the duties and authority of a government via a Constitution, but via an expansive misinterpretation of the general welfare clause, or the commerce clause discard any limitations, then government is free to do whatever is considered good by the majority. Good works are unbounded, however resources are always scarce.
That's circular logic, KN. That the government's laws don't allow you to claim back your money doesn't mean it was never yours nor that they were justified in taking it in the first place.
I have no problem with taxation. It's a necessary evil. But when you get taxed, it is your money they're taxing.
Once a democracy, even a limited one concedes the ability of one faction to vote themselves the resources of another, we have legitimized theft. Does it matter if I believe my neighbor has more than he needs, and I have less than I need? Can I justify robbing him at gun point? Is it really any different, if a majority votes to have the government hold the gun and demand the money on our behalf?
02 Mar 13
Originally posted by normbenignYes, all wealth is held conditionally.
Taxation is a necessary evil. Government needs to be funded. Question is how, and how much. Evils, even necessary ones ought to be minimized. If we limit the duties and authority of a government via a Constitution, but via an expansive misinterpretation of the general welfare clause, or the commerce clause discard any limitations, then government is fr ...[text shortened]... ent, if a majority votes to have the government hold the gun and demand the money on our behalf?
02 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI do prefer moose over beef. Just looked up Lapland and hell yea count me in. Probably hard to learn the languages though.
You don't have to be part of the system if you don't want to. There are only 50,000 people in Lapland, plenty of room for you. I hope you like moose.
03 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignI always wanted to go to Alaska but they will not be immune to Obama care either. From what I read there is more like 120000 souls in Lapland.
Strikes me that 50,000 people in Lapland might be similar to the population of Alaska in the US. Lots of land, small relative population, but little room for more people, especially people without specific survival skills.
As for purchasing a new car, why buy something that depreciates significantly the instant you take it out of the store. Also, today's autos are a great deal compared to cars of yesteryear. You can easily expect to get 300,000 miles out of a cheap Honda or Toyota and probably others as well. Plus the gas milage and safety are far superior.
As for taxes and government, may I suggest you move to Somalia where there is no government. Of course there is also no infrastructure or education so good luck starting a business.
The real problem with health care is not Obama Care which is a good thing. It is the "non-profit" rip off hospitals and their totally unethical billing system that is ripping off everyone. See the recent article in Time magazine. Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us By Steven BrillFeb. 20, 2013
03 Mar 13
Originally posted by PhrannyWell it is both. Obama care forces us to buy insurance but did nothing to change what is wrong with the system.
As for purchasing a new car, why buy something that depreciates significantly the instant you take it out of the store. Also, today's autos are a great deal compared to cars of yesteryear. You can easily expect to get 300,000 miles out of a cheap Honda or Toyota and probably others as well. Plus the gas milage and safety are far superior.
As for taxe ...[text shortened]... in Time magazine. Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us By Steven BrillFeb. 20, 2013
03 Mar 13
Originally posted by normbenignIn England, since the Baron's revolt, if the King wanted to raise new taxes or change the law he needed the consent of parliament. Now, it's the U.K., and the Queen asks whoever is the leader of the largest party in parliament to form a government for her so she can get on with more important things like racing horses. Given the government is formed from the largest party in parliament they can pretty much do what they want. The long term check on their behaviour is that the next parliament can undo whatever they've done and the short term check is the risk of backbench revolt. They tinker round with taxes every year, but we know the probable behaviour of the government from the parties likely to win, and even if they do do something unexpected, there's quite a long time before whatever tax changes are going to hit us, hit us. The community charge which Thatcher tried to introduce in the late eighties was overturned. It's hardly what you could call insecurity.
I suppose that is correct, but if the conditions tend to be insecure, there is likely to be not much capital accumulation, or investment, and a stagnant economy with a low standard of living.
03 Mar 13
different. Originally posted by normbenignThe answer to your question is of course YES it is different. Observe the statistical evidence of increasing and obscene concentrations of wealth in fewer and fewer hands, and the declining assets of the majority throughout the Anglo Saxon economies and ask who wrote the rules to make this so inexorable. Observe the overwhelming evidence that increasing inequality is directly and causally associated with increasing social ills of every kind.
Taxation is a necessary evil. Government needs to be funded. Question is how, and how much. Evils, even necessary ones ought to be minimized. If we limit the duties and authority of a government via a Constitution, but via an expansive misinterpretation of the general welfare clause, or the commerce clause discard any limitations, then gover ...[text shortened]... ent, if a majority votes to have the government hold the gun and demand the money on our behalf?
The job which neo liberal governments have been doing too well and for too long is precisely to organize the systematic deprivation of the majority for the benefit of a wealthy and priviliged minority. That is the theft and taxation through a democratic government is an essential part of the appropriate remedy.
04 Mar 13
Originally posted by finneganI partly agree with you, the part being, "The job which neo liberal governments have been doing too well and for too long is precisely to organize the systematic deprivation of the majority for the benefit of a wealthy and priviliged minority."
The answer to your question is of course YES it is different. Observe the statistical evidence of increasing and obscene concentrations of wealth in fewer and fewer hands, and the declining assets of the majority throughout the Anglo Saxon economies and ask who wrote the rules to make this so inexorable. Observe the overwhelming evidence that increasing in ...[text shortened]... eft and taxation through a democratic government is an essential part of the appropriate remedy.
Unfortunately, that is a predictable result of interventionism. The highest and most unjust tax is that of debasement of currency, intentional inflation policy. This is a tax that harms the lowest income groups the most, and is almost immune to detection. It is the poor that celebrate the grotesque government spending, and the illusion of taxing the rich. The argument that deficit government spending, and borrowing the money to do it benefits anyone is poppycock.