BF2S Forums Taxes: How much is too much?

Turquoise wrote:

If I break your legs and burn your eyes out, I can assure you that you will no longer support social darwinism.

But I will rest assured that you are rotting in your grave.  Who still gets the better deal.  Actually, I would prefer to sue you at that point so you have to work for the rest of your life to support me, since you took away my ability to work.  No government involvement other than the court system, and you pay for your crime.

And that was not the most well-thought out response you could have made.  Actually, it was pretty weak.

Turquoise wrote:

In short, judging by your responses, I'm assuming you are either very naive, a trustfunder, or a callous business owner.

I am not naive; in fact, I have seen many sides of life, not only in the US, but around the world.  I only made 24,000 last year, and I work to survive.  I would not call that too well off.  I am not a business owner, but am I callous?  You bet.  Never denied it.

Donations to charities have been on the increase in recent years.  No, there are currently no charities to provide the services that would be needed.  Why should there?  The nanny state government is there to take care of all of that.

To cover unforseen injuries.  Insurance.  That is what it is for.  The health care and health insurance system is completely riddled by coorperate and government red tape, driving up the cost on pretty much everything.

If I was any closer to the edge of proper society, I would be over it.  I was unemployed for 5 months when I left the army.  I never applied for a single dollar of unemployment.  When I got a job and cashed my first paycheck, I had $20 left in my account.  Most people in America are one paycheck from being homeless.  Prepare accordingly.

When Katrina happened, many of the evacuees landed here in Austin.  There were wonderful stories of people stepping off the bus from Houston and finding a job within an hour.  Maybe as a cook or a school bus driver, but those people took control of their lives following a distastrous event.  Then there is the other kind.  9 months after Katrina, there was a news report on a woman and mother of 4, evacuated from New Orleans.  The funding for their hotel room was in danger of expiring, and she was on the news pleading for 'someone to take care of her and her children.'  Take care of her.  She had admittedly made no attempt to improve her own lot in life. NO attempt to even find a job.  She depended on the government to care for her.

There are entire families in America that have no idea of the concept of self-reliance.  No living soul in their family holds or has ever held a job, simply dependant on a government to care for them.  I call them a useless drain on society.  Am I callous?  Yes.  Am I heartless?  You may think so.

As long as the government has the desire and ability to coddle and care for those who cannot or will not care for themselves, then there will be those who depend on the system.  If you are a caring and compassionate person as you believe I am not, then YOU volunteer with a charity or church orginazation. YOU give money to help those you feel are in need.  YOU take someone in and care for them.  If I feel the need or desire, then I will too.  And if the government did not tax us so much, we would all have more money to be able to donate.  So, you give if you feel the need.  But don't you dare come take my money to give away, and don't send the government to do it for you.

I feel the only proper use for government is to provide courts, law enforcement, and a military.  I also feel the only people a government should morally provide care for are the law enforcement and military personnel injured while performing their duty on behalf of the government.  Anyone else is dependant on family, church, charity, insurance, or judicial compensation from the responsible party.

Yes, a lot of my ideals and goals are pie-in-the-sky.  Will we ever get there?  Most likely not.  But we never will if we don't try.

EDIT*** Oh, and you are using a time-honored liberal tactic of trying to dismiss my opinion by attacking me, as a person instead of my ideas.  As if somehow what I think would not matter if I were a business owner?  Nice attempt at trying to label me, by the way.  It is supposed to make me go on the defensive and attempt to justify myself to you instead of promoting my ideas.  That is why liberals attack people by calling them racist.  The argument then becomes about the person, and not the issue.  You even had me going for a while, trying to justify myself; I have no need to.  My position stands.

Last edited by imortal (2007-03-21 13:05:57)

apollo_fi wrote:

imortal wrote:

I feel the only proper use for government is to provide courts, law enforcement, and a military.

What, no public roads, public schools, drinking water, waste processing, fire brigades?

First, I was concentrating on FEDERAL government.  I appologize if that was not clear.  The examples here are mostly the concern of local governments, but if you want to go whole hog, here we go.

No public roads.  local roads can be community sponsored; long distance roads can be funded by a private company.  If we are getting swamped in toll roads already, might as well cut out the government as a middleman and pay the companies directly.

No public schools. Homeschooling or private schools.  IF private schools have to compete more, should moderate the prices.  Also, public schools mean they are goverment run, with government curriculums. I want to decide how and what my child learns, instead of letting the government decide.  Also, having state run schools is one of Carl Marx's ideas to promote communism. 

Drinking water.  I assume you mean public utilities.  Private business. same for waste processing.  Waste processing is mostly done by private companies contracted to the local government anyway.

Fire brigades.  Private companies, contracted by insurance companies.  Same for EMS.

And before you all start bringing up the evils of capitalism and corruption, I point out a wonderful business opportunity as a company that rates and reviews companies on their performance.  Competition breeds low cost and high quiality.

UGADawgs wrote:

We need to get a time machine up and send imortal back to the late 1800s to see how wonderful laissez-faire capitalism was. I bet he'd love it there.

And a wonderful counter; I am in awe. There are many advances we have now that were not available a couple centuries ago.  But if you would rather the government take care of you, do not worry.  They will care for you so your parents don't have to.  They will send you to school school to tell you what they want you to learn. They will give you a place to live.  They will find you a job.  They will take your money to make sure they can help others.  They will take your children so they can teach them as they taught you.  They will make sure you can contribute to support those who will not contribute.  If you don't contribute, that is okay, they will tax other people to support you.  They will make sure you have a grave site.

They just won't ask you what you want. 

That is security.  That is the eventual goal of government left unchecked.

There's only one thing I can tell you for sure:

Your state is not as greedy as a private organisation. Therefore, this is where your taxes/cash belongs to

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

I see our population all ready growing too lazy.  I can not justify an increase in social services when there is such a large group willing to milk it for all its worth while myself and other responsible citizens work our asses off to maintain a barely middle class life style.  If you want social services get a state or federally funded job and earn it.  I am tired of well fare and the idea we should give something for nothing.  If you want well fare checks there should be mandatory community service attached.  Make people contribure to society before they take their hand out and drink or somke it away.

I don't think that this would work. How would someone suffering from some illness be able to conduct that community service?
And it's just what I can tell you from my own experience: The numerous times I've been in the hospital for various reasons (mainly sports) would have cost us a lot more than the insurance. Those who do NOT take advantage from a compulsory insurance system are only a very few lucky ones who never seem to get in trouble for any reason. That's simply because the state pays all the expenses that are left for the hospitals after using your insurance's money - or well, as soon as the state is more or less your insurance, that's even easier

imortal wrote:

I am not naive; in fact, I have seen many sides of life, not only in the US, but around the world.  I only made 24,000 last year, and I work to survive.  I would not call that too well off.  I am not a business owner, but am I callous?  You bet.  Never denied it.

Admittedly, I'm callous with regard to things like Africa, so we're a little closer than I gave you credit for.

imortal wrote:

Donations to charities have been on the increase in recent years.  No, there are currently no charities to provide the services that would be needed.  Why should there?  The nanny state government is there to take care of all of that.

To cover unforseen injuries.  Insurance.  That is what it is for.  The health care and health insurance system is completely riddled by coorperate and government red tape, driving up the cost on pretty much everything.

If I was any closer to the edge of proper society, I would be over it.  I was unemployed for 5 months when I left the army.  I never applied for a single dollar of unemployment.  When I got a job and cashed my first paycheck, I had $20 left in my account.  Most people in America are one paycheck from being homeless.  Prepare accordingly.

When Katrina happened, many of the evacuees landed here in Austin.  There were wonderful stories of people stepping off the bus from Houston and finding a job within an hour.  Maybe as a cook or a school bus driver, but those people took control of their lives following a distastrous event.  Then there is the other kind.  9 months after Katrina, there was a news report on a woman and mother of 4, evacuated from New Orleans.  The funding for their hotel room was in danger of expiring, and she was on the news pleading for 'someone to take care of her and her children.'  Take care of her.  She had admittedly made no attempt to improve her own lot in life. NO attempt to even find a job.  She depended on the government to care for her.

There are entire families in America that have no idea of the concept of self-reliance.  No living soul in their family holds or has ever held a job, simply dependant on a government to care for them.  I call them a useless drain on society.  Am I callous?  Yes.  Am I heartless?  You may think so.

As long as the government has the desire and ability to coddle and care for those who cannot or will not care for themselves, then there will be those who depend on the system.  If you are a caring and compassionate person as you believe I am not, then YOU volunteer with a charity or church orginazation. YOU give money to help those you feel are in need.  YOU take someone in and care for them.  If I feel the need or desire, then I will too.  And if the government did not tax us so much, we would all have more money to be able to donate.  So, you give if you feel the need.  But don't you dare come take my money to give away, and don't send the government to do it for you.

I feel the only proper use for government is to provide courts, law enforcement, and a military.  I also feel the only people a government should morally provide care for are the law enforcement and military personnel injured while performing their duty on behalf of the government.  Anyone else is dependant on family, church, charity, insurance, or judicial compensation from the responsible party.

Yes, a lot of my ideals and goals are pie-in-the-sky.  Will we ever get there?  Most likely not.  But we never will if we don't try.

I used to agree with a lot of what you've posted, but I only sympathize with some of it now.  I definitely don't like the idea of helping people that don't help themselves.

At the same time though, you've oversimplified most of the issues that our government programs account for.  Essentially, you're advocating a kind of government that is more commonly found in the Third World.  It's by more than just a coincidence that social mobility is far less prevalent and poverty is far more widespread in nations without a "nanny state" as you call it.

imortal wrote:

EDIT*** Oh, and you are using a time-honored liberal tactic of trying to dismiss my opinion by attacking me, as a person instead of my ideas.  As if somehow what I think would not matter if I were a business owner?  Nice attempt at trying to label me, by the way.  It is supposed to make me go on the defensive and attempt to justify myself to you instead of promoting my ideas.  That is why liberals attack people by calling them racist.  The argument then becomes about the person, and not the issue.  You even had me going for a while, trying to justify myself; I have no need to.  My position stands.

If you think attacking someone personally is purely liberal, you haven't been paying attention.  Nevertheless, I will relent, because I respect your defense.  You stick to more logical responses, even if I disagree with the logic being used.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-03-21 17:15:45)

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

I , being agianst taxes in ALMOST every way shape and form, do not trust our goverment to handle our money (strictly speaking of the US of course). They tried that with social security and look at it now. Things need to be more privatised as companies can fight for contrats allowing not only the goverment but the people to reap the rewards of capitalism through lower taxes. Just my two cents.

Oh really?  You mean so corporate scumbags can cook the books and reap millions of dollars while sending their company and stockholders into never never land?  You mean just like corporations that failed to fund thier pensions, which end up getting picked up by the government anyway?

SSI wouldn't be in as bad a shape as it is in if the government would stop borrowing money from the fund for other reasons and then never pay it back.

Unfortunately, that isn't the case.  Government contractors often overcharge and do not do that good of work.

Obviously the government can't, nor should it, do everything.  yes, contracting of some services provides the best overall result, but there are certain things that should be left under government control.  SSI is not a bad program.  The primary problem with the program is that politicians borrow against it and have no guaranteed means of paying it back.  People are allowed to invest money outside of what goes to SSI.  SSI also pays out should someone become disabled and are no longer able to work.

Roads are a mixture from all levels.  The feds do handle some roads, because they are on federal land.  That means it's public property, and that means the feds handle the road building.  They also grant money to the states to use as they see fit.  The states also collect their own taxes, in many different ways, that can be allocated for roads.  Yes, the construction work for those roads are usually contracted, but the government still decides where and when roads will be built, and it should remain that way.

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

I , being agianst taxes in ALMOST every way shape and form, do not trust our goverment to handle our money (strictly speaking of the US of course). They tried that with social security and look at it now. Things need to be more privatised as companies can fight for contrats allowing not only the goverment but the people to reap the rewards of capitalism through lower taxes. Just my two cents.

Some things should be more privatized, but other things are too privatized as it is.

For example, a lot of the excessive cost of the Iraq War has been due to the immense amount of privatization of it.  If we had a military large enough to provide all the supplementary services (like food, water treatment, and ALL needed security), then we'd save money.

Privatization should be limited when it comes to warfare and reconstruction.

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

I , being agianst taxes in ALMOST every way shape and form, do not trust our goverment to handle our money (strictly speaking of the US of course). They tried that with social security and look at it now. Things need to be more privatised as companies can fight for contrats allowing not only the goverment but the people to reap the rewards of capitalism through lower taxes. Just my two cents.

Some things should be more privatized, but other things are too privatized as it is.

For example, a lot of the excessive cost of the Iraq War has been due to the immense amount of privatization of it.  If we had a military large enough to provide all the supplementary services (like food, water treatment, and ALL needed security), then we'd save money.

Privatization should be limited when it comes to warfare and reconstruction.

agreed. companies need to stay out of military, as they might use that lever to thier advantage, but on a more localized scale with the federal agencies that are in need of major reconsrtruction, privitization can help. SSI being the major contender (sorry to bring it up time and time agian but it is something that every american can relate to.)

Well, the main problem I have with the reconstruction of Iraq (aside from how often our structures get blown up) is that the companies involved seem to be in collusion with certain politicians.  For example, Halliburton seems to get away with almost murder when it comes to overcharging us.  It has to get REALLY bad before the government actually takes charge and penalizes them.

Then, you have the issue of "cost-plus" budgeting.  That arrangement offers no incentive at all to keep things reasonable in their cost.  Watch "Iraq for Sale" and you'll know what I mean.

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

then the U.S. should just drop them im sure lots of companies would love to get thier hands on a U.S. military contract

ummm... afraid not.  As of 2003, there were only 2 companies in the WORLD that specialize in providing life support to troops in combat areas.  One is a French company I am not familiar with.  The other Is Brown & Root, which was bought by Kellog to become KBR, which in turn is a subsidiary of... Halliburton.

Just for general knowledge, Brown & Root was given a no-bid contract for life support for troops in Bosnia in 1996. Recall this was the Clinton administration, so no republicans were involved with that one. 

Also, our current VP, Cheney, used to be the Secratary of Defense during the Bush I administration.  As such, he was in a good position to discover what companies might be good investments once he re-entered private life.  Wouldn't you?  When he invested in Halliburton, I doubt he knew he was going to end up Vice President.  I am not claiming he in innocent, but this seems a perfectly plausible and, to me, more reasonable explanation.

Turquoise wrote:

As you stated though, Halliburton is one of the few companies that can provide the services we needed in Iraq, and because of that, they behaved like a monopoly -- very uncapitalistic.

I am not saying you are wrong, except for the capitalistic part.  The unfortunate side of capitalism is that it tends toward monopolies, and then "what the market will bear" begins to hurt instead of help.  Lack of competition is a down side.  I never said the system was perfect.