|
Fffffff there's a futurama clip that perfectly expresses my opinions on this. It's during the time-skips episode and there's these two kids standing outside the social security office protesting all like "I hate old people, why should my tax dollars go to supporting them!" and then bamf! they get warped and are now old and just scream out "I deserve free money!"
And I can't find that clip anywhere T_T
|
On February 02 2011 01:20 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 00:52 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:49 texasjoe1983 wrote:
This is similar to what is being debated about the health care control act in the U.S..
If people could opt out of the system, a good portion of the healthy (who don't typically need health care) will opt out of the system and just pay out-of-pocket for things like checkups and screenings. The allowance of the unhealthy with pre-existing conditions (who need a good amounty of health care typically) will become part of the system. The disproportion in healthy to unhealthy policy holders would actually cause the whole damn thing to collapse because it would just be too expensive to have an insurance policy and pay for everyone else's problems.
That is why in order for it to not collapse, the system has to be mandatory for all. This mandate that you have to buy insurance goes against the spirit of the United States constitution.
When social security and Medicare/Medicaid were implemented, there was a similar debate going on about how it was an unconstitutional tax.
I know for damn sure that if I could opt out and have my retirement worked out privately, I would opt out. So basically unless we force people who don't need it to pay for it, it doesn't work, so we must force them. That sounds so good and fair. Well, since each of us could - at least in principle - be in a position of need it is fair under the so called veil of ignorance. I think you are a bit confused with regard to what you would like to advocate, however. It seems to me that your main gripe is that you face a situation where the largest part of inhabitable territory on this planet is actually owned by communal groups (or states), which mostly formed long before you were born. They force you into a contract which requires you to follow certain rules (like registering yourself, paying fees and taxes) whenever you engage into transactions with other members and punish you if you don't follow these rules. Notice however that none of that relies on the institution of a government and you could have - at least in theory - found yourself in the same situation in any anarchical society which has been stable enough for a sufficient time and therefore is subject to property or defacto claims of territory. The good news for you is that just by virtue of being born you are equipped with a basic share of the territorial property in exchange for you being forced into said contract. Your rights to this share are upheld by an institution called "the state" and while you cannot directly touch or exploit your share of property, it is made sure that you profit - within limits - from any benefit which is reaped. Notice that only this second part of the deal requires a formal institution to represent your rights. From your statements it seems to me that you rather object to the first paragraph. This leads me to conclude that you simply don't wish to live in a society or community, but rather be on your own. Is that the case? With regard to your comment about government vs government wars: Did it occur to you that these wars might be a direct result of the fact that there is no authoritative force on the level of countries/states which is able to internalize conflicts? On the level of governments there is actually a defacto anarchy, which consequentially leads to armed conflicts.
A thoughtful post, like a breath of fresh air.
I am quite sure what I advocate however, and it is that we live without initiating violence against each other.
I do wish to live in a community, and it is quite possible for a community to exist without having to initiate violence against it's own. I fully support the idea of a violent self defense, and a violent retaliation when the time for self defense has passed. I do not support the idea of using violence, to accomplish a goal, to steal from someone "for his own good", or for the so called good of society.
I am glad the you do realize the anarchy is the true nature of our world, as it is the state in which governments exist with each other, and yes, sometimes fights do erupt. A "de facto anarchy" as you called it.
Mankind has built up these governments, and it has accomplished nothing. Instead of a few guys shooting each other in the streets, we have nations massacring each other. All we have done is increase the levels of power, control, and destruction, by funding government and creating these behemoths.
|
On February 02 2011 01:08 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 01:05 MiniRoman wrote:On February 01 2011 17:05 Morfildur wrote:On February 01 2011 16:57 LyRa wrote:
If they were optional and people had the choice not to pay - they probably wouldn't. Yep, because people in general are stupid. Those taxes are not just for your future, they are for those who already need the money. You are giving the money to the community, so those that are retired already can use it, people that are ill can get medical care, etc. In turn for paying those taxes you can expect people to pay for you when you get old or require medical care. I don't know the correct english term, but in germany we call it a "generation contract". This generation pays for the previous, so the next will pay for us, knowing that those after them will pay for them. Of course this doesn't work in the selfish USA, where everyone only cares about himself. I pay my taxes and would pay them if they were voluntary, i don't even care about getting any tax refunds because in the end, the money will be used for the community and i trust in the government to use it to it's best ability for the good of everyone. User was temp banned for this post. Was he banned cause he said selfish america? Look at the poll results. Banners been riduclous lately. I got banned for "being a douche" in the swearing/opinion thread when the guy specifically asked if he sounded stupid. wtf tl. Edit: to be on topic. Yes, I like Canada's tax system and our social security programs. I'm glad I live here. So people who don't want to pay a bankrupt government to fund a bankrupt program are either selfish or stupid? You can't really compare Canada or any other country's social programs to the USA, you aren't wasting your money on half the world's military budget. If US wasn't, it could afford all sorts of social programs and still have lower taxes than it has right now. Wish I was born there, I would be glad too.
Have you ever looked at the budget. Our defense budget, appropriations for wars, and military contracts aren't even close to what we spent on our social programs already. Even if you reduced all our military spending to 0 we'd have trouble coming up even. Keep in mind that military is the ONLY reason gov't exists. It's why people made gov'ts in the first place, it's the only power that the founding fathers wanted the federal gov't to truly have, and it's why we have the power system we do.
We might spend a ton of money compared to the rest of the world, but for a nation with our economy and GDP it's not actually that much. In the end, we could take on the entire world's armed forces if we had to. That kind of security is what we pay for. If you don't value security, don't have gov't.
Canada would be conquered by the Japanese or Russians or someone else by now if it wasn't for the US. Think about that one.
|
On February 02 2011 01:33 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 01:20 MiraMax wrote:On February 02 2011 00:52 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:49 texasjoe1983 wrote:
This is similar to what is being debated about the health care control act in the U.S..
If people could opt out of the system, a good portion of the healthy (who don't typically need health care) will opt out of the system and just pay out-of-pocket for things like checkups and screenings. The allowance of the unhealthy with pre-existing conditions (who need a good amounty of health care typically) will become part of the system. The disproportion in healthy to unhealthy policy holders would actually cause the whole damn thing to collapse because it would just be too expensive to have an insurance policy and pay for everyone else's problems.
That is why in order for it to not collapse, the system has to be mandatory for all. This mandate that you have to buy insurance goes against the spirit of the United States constitution.
When social security and Medicare/Medicaid were implemented, there was a similar debate going on about how it was an unconstitutional tax.
I know for damn sure that if I could opt out and have my retirement worked out privately, I would opt out. So basically unless we force people who don't need it to pay for it, it doesn't work, so we must force them. That sounds so good and fair. Well, since each of us could - at least in principle - be in a position of need it is fair under the so called veil of ignorance. I think you are a bit confused with regard to what you would like to advocate, however. It seems to me that your main gripe is that you face a situation where the largest part of inhabitable territory on this planet is actually owned by communal groups (or states), which mostly formed long before you were born. They force you into a contract which requires you to follow certain rules (like registering yourself, paying fees and taxes) whenever you engage into transactions with other members and punish you if you don't follow these rules. Notice however that none of that relies on the institution of a government and you could have - at least in theory - found yourself in the same situation in any anarchical society which has been stable enough for a sufficient time and therefore is subject to property or defacto claims of territory. The good news for you is that just by virtue of being born you are equipped with a basic share of the territorial property in exchange for you being forced into said contract. Your rights to this share are upheld by an institution called "the state" and while you cannot directly touch or exploit your share of property, it is made sure that you profit - within limits - from any benefit which is reaped. Notice that only this second part of the deal requires a formal institution to represent your rights. From your statements it seems to me that you rather object to the first paragraph. This leads me to conclude that you simply don't wish to live in a society or community, but rather be on your own. Is that the case? With regard to your comment about government vs government wars: Did it occur to you that these wars might be a direct result of the fact that there is no authoritative force on the level of countries/states which is able to internalize conflicts? On the level of governments there is actually a defacto anarchy, which consequentially leads to armed conflicts. A thoughtful post, like a breath of fresh air. I am quite sure what I advocate however, and it is that we live without initiating violence against each other. I do wish to live in a community, and it is quite possible for a community to exist without having to initiate violence against it's own. I fully support the idea of a violent self defense, and a violent retaliation when the time for self defense has passed. I do not support the idea of using violence, to accomplish a goal, to steal from someone "for his own good", or for the so called good of society. I am glad the you do realize the anarchy is the true nature of our world, as it is the state in which governments exist with each other, and yes, sometimes fights do erupt. A "de facto anarchy" as you called it. Mankind has built up these governments, and it has accomplished nothing. Instead of a few guys shooting each other in the streets, we have nations massacring each other. All we have done is increase the levels of power, control, and destruction, by funding government and creating these behemoths.
Clearly Africa is so much better off than America because they have weak gov'ts and anarchy. In fact, since it's so much better there without gov't breathing down your neck, go move there, you'll be happy you did!
|
On February 02 2011 01:29 RaGe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 00:57 texasjoe1983 wrote:On February 02 2011 00:52 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:49 texasjoe1983 wrote:
This is similar to what is being debated about the health care control act in the U.S..
If people could opt out of the system, a good portion of the healthy (who don't typically need health care) will opt out of the system and just pay out-of-pocket for things like checkups and screenings. The allowance of the unhealthy with pre-existing conditions (who need a good amounty of health care typically) will become part of the system. The disproportion in healthy to unhealthy policy holders would actually cause the whole damn thing to collapse because it would just be too expensive to have an insurance policy and pay for everyone else's problems.
That is why in order for it to not collapse, the system has to be mandatory for all. This mandate that you have to buy insurance goes against the spirit of the United States constitution.
When social security and Medicare/Medicaid were implemented, there was a similar debate going on about how it was an unconstitutional tax.
I know for damn sure that if I could opt out and have my retirement worked out privately, I would opt out. So basically unless we force people who don't need it to pay for it, it doesn't work, so we must force them. That sounds so good and fair. That's my point. 26 states have filed lawsuits against this bill. This is more dissention across the country over a piece of legislation in the history of the U.S.. Something has got to be wrong with it for so many people to not want it. + Show Spoiler +
Oh wow, 26 states. They probably all decided that independently and don't happen to all be republican states do they?
You're acting as if all the people in those 26 states are against the bill, while it's just the Republican party trying to block every bill that the Democrats could label as a success.
Using "Something has got to be wrong with it for so many people to not want it." as an argument is therefor just ridiculous. It basically means that you think because the Republican party is doing everything to stop a bill it has to be wrong.
As for your anti health care argument, it saddens me greatly that people still think like this. Of course a health care system is not always fair, and you always have people profiting from it and people losing money because of it. Much like any state investment in highways isn't equally used among citizens.
However, it's fucking HEALTH we're talking about. If the richest country in the world doesn't have a system that prevents its citizens from dying because they don't have the money to get treatment, where the hell is this world going? Do you think we reached the pinnacle of civilization standards and that humanity shouldn't improve its own general living conditions anymore?
Lastly, despite being "the land of opportunity", the US is still one of the hardest civilized countries for a poor person to get a decent education and leave poverty. The popular opinion that poverty is a result of laziness/stupidity is a retarded one and a result of the very skewed image you get upon receiving all the opportunities the poorer people didn't get.
The reality is, most of the times when a person can't afford his medical treatment it's not his own fault.
Love this post, Rage.
But you forget that here in the states we have a *major* collective boner for the "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality. It's pretty ingrained in society, and the media, (especially FOX for example) is always filled with examples of "welfare queens", or stories about some jerk who cheated social security, and how we should abolish the system because it could be taken advantage of.
You forget it took us *10 years* to pass the 9/11 first responder health care act because "How do we know that all the people benefiting from it were actually there?" Or other such ridiculous arguments. It's less about honestly caring about people, and more about your side "winning" the argument.
|
On February 02 2011 01:33 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 01:20 MiraMax wrote:On February 02 2011 00:52 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:49 texasjoe1983 wrote:
This is similar to what is being debated about the health care control act in the U.S..
If people could opt out of the system, a good portion of the healthy (who don't typically need health care) will opt out of the system and just pay out-of-pocket for things like checkups and screenings. The allowance of the unhealthy with pre-existing conditions (who need a good amounty of health care typically) will become part of the system. The disproportion in healthy to unhealthy policy holders would actually cause the whole damn thing to collapse because it would just be too expensive to have an insurance policy and pay for everyone else's problems.
That is why in order for it to not collapse, the system has to be mandatory for all. This mandate that you have to buy insurance goes against the spirit of the United States constitution.
When social security and Medicare/Medicaid were implemented, there was a similar debate going on about how it was an unconstitutional tax.
I know for damn sure that if I could opt out and have my retirement worked out privately, I would opt out. So basically unless we force people who don't need it to pay for it, it doesn't work, so we must force them. That sounds so good and fair. Well, since each of us could - at least in principle - be in a position of need it is fair under the so called veil of ignorance. I think you are a bit confused with regard to what you would like to advocate, however. It seems to me that your main gripe is that you face a situation where the largest part of inhabitable territory on this planet is actually owned by communal groups (or states), which mostly formed long before you were born. They force you into a contract which requires you to follow certain rules (like registering yourself, paying fees and taxes) whenever you engage into transactions with other members and punish you if you don't follow these rules. Notice however that none of that relies on the institution of a government and you could have - at least in theory - found yourself in the same situation in any anarchical society which has been stable enough for a sufficient time and therefore is subject to property or defacto claims of territory. The good news for you is that just by virtue of being born you are equipped with a basic share of the territorial property in exchange for you being forced into said contract. Your rights to this share are upheld by an institution called "the state" and while you cannot directly touch or exploit your share of property, it is made sure that you profit - within limits - from any benefit which is reaped. Notice that only this second part of the deal requires a formal institution to represent your rights. From your statements it seems to me that you rather object to the first paragraph. This leads me to conclude that you simply don't wish to live in a society or community, but rather be on your own. Is that the case? With regard to your comment about government vs government wars: Did it occur to you that these wars might be a direct result of the fact that there is no authoritative force on the level of countries/states which is able to internalize conflicts? On the level of governments there is actually a defacto anarchy, which consequentially leads to armed conflicts. A thoughtful post, like a breath of fresh air. I am quite sure what I advocate however, and it is that we live without initiating violence against each other. I do wish to live in a community, and it is quite possible for a community to exist without having to initiate violence against it's own. I fully support the idea of a violent self defense, and a violent retaliation when the time for self defense has passed. I do not support the idea of using violence, to accomplish a goal, to steal from someone "for his own good", or for the so called good of society. I am glad the you do realize the anarchy is the true nature of our world, as it is the state in which governments exist with each other, and yes, sometimes fights do erupt. A "de facto anarchy" as you called it. Mankind has built up these governments, and it has accomplished nothing. Instead of a few guys shooting each other in the streets, we have nations massacring each other. All we have done is increase the levels of power, control, and destruction, by funding government and creating these behemoths.
The world that you advocate is a beautiful utopia where every person is a rational intelligent persn that has transcended byeond petty human traits such as greed, jealousy and out-group hatred. Oh how I would love to live in that world and how I would fear to be unworthy of it. The simple fact is that we are, as a species, not ready for this idea of, lets call it rational anarchy in the words of Robert A. Heinlein.
Popular science has - in the recent years - shown us over and over again how irrational humans are and until that changes fundamentally, I am afraid that states under the rule of law are the best alternative we have, especially if they are founded on a constitution that limits the power of the state.
|
On February 02 2011 01:36 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 01:08 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 01:05 MiniRoman wrote:On February 01 2011 17:05 Morfildur wrote:On February 01 2011 16:57 LyRa wrote:
If they were optional and people had the choice not to pay - they probably wouldn't. Yep, because people in general are stupid. Those taxes are not just for your future, they are for those who already need the money. You are giving the money to the community, so those that are retired already can use it, people that are ill can get medical care, etc. In turn for paying those taxes you can expect people to pay for you when you get old or require medical care. I don't know the correct english term, but in germany we call it a "generation contract". This generation pays for the previous, so the next will pay for us, knowing that those after them will pay for them. Of course this doesn't work in the selfish USA, where everyone only cares about himself. I pay my taxes and would pay them if they were voluntary, i don't even care about getting any tax refunds because in the end, the money will be used for the community and i trust in the government to use it to it's best ability for the good of everyone. User was temp banned for this post. Was he banned cause he said selfish america? Look at the poll results. Banners been riduclous lately. I got banned for "being a douche" in the swearing/opinion thread when the guy specifically asked if he sounded stupid. wtf tl. Edit: to be on topic. Yes, I like Canada's tax system and our social security programs. I'm glad I live here. So people who don't want to pay a bankrupt government to fund a bankrupt program are either selfish or stupid? You can't really compare Canada or any other country's social programs to the USA, you aren't wasting your money on half the world's military budget. If US wasn't, it could afford all sorts of social programs and still have lower taxes than it has right now. Wish I was born there, I would be glad too. Have you ever looked at the budget. Our defense budget, appropriations for wars, and military contracts aren't even close to what we spent on our social programs already. Even if you reduced all our military spending to 0 we'd have trouble coming up even. Keep in mind that military is the ONLY reason gov't exists. It's why people made gov'ts in the first place, it's the only power that the founding fathers wanted the federal gov't to truly have, and it's why we have the power system we do. We might spend a ton of money compared to the rest of the world, but for a nation with our economy and GDP it's not actually that much. In the end, we could take on the entire world's armed forces if we had to. That kind of security is what we pay for. If you don't value security, don't have gov't. Canada would be conquered by the Japanese or Russians or someone else by now if it wasn't for the US. Think about that one.
Forming a military is the only reason for governments to exist?
You can't seriously believe that, can you?
|
On February 02 2011 01:33 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 01:20 MiraMax wrote:On February 02 2011 00:52 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:49 texasjoe1983 wrote:
This is similar to what is being debated about the health care control act in the U.S..
If people could opt out of the system, a good portion of the healthy (who don't typically need health care) will opt out of the system and just pay out-of-pocket for things like checkups and screenings. The allowance of the unhealthy with pre-existing conditions (who need a good amounty of health care typically) will become part of the system. The disproportion in healthy to unhealthy policy holders would actually cause the whole damn thing to collapse because it would just be too expensive to have an insurance policy and pay for everyone else's problems.
That is why in order for it to not collapse, the system has to be mandatory for all. This mandate that you have to buy insurance goes against the spirit of the United States constitution.
When social security and Medicare/Medicaid were implemented, there was a similar debate going on about how it was an unconstitutional tax.
I know for damn sure that if I could opt out and have my retirement worked out privately, I would opt out. So basically unless we force people who don't need it to pay for it, it doesn't work, so we must force them. That sounds so good and fair. Well, since each of us could - at least in principle - be in a position of need it is fair under the so called veil of ignorance. I think you are a bit confused with regard to what you would like to advocate, however. It seems to me that your main gripe is that you face a situation where the largest part of inhabitable territory on this planet is actually owned by communal groups (or states), which mostly formed long before you were born. They force you into a contract which requires you to follow certain rules (like registering yourself, paying fees and taxes) whenever you engage into transactions with other members and punish you if you don't follow these rules. Notice however that none of that relies on the institution of a government and you could have - at least in theory - found yourself in the same situation in any anarchical society which has been stable enough for a sufficient time and therefore is subject to property or defacto claims of territory. The good news for you is that just by virtue of being born you are equipped with a basic share of the territorial property in exchange for you being forced into said contract. Your rights to this share are upheld by an institution called "the state" and while you cannot directly touch or exploit your share of property, it is made sure that you profit - within limits - from any benefit which is reaped. Notice that only this second part of the deal requires a formal institution to represent your rights. From your statements it seems to me that you rather object to the first paragraph. This leads me to conclude that you simply don't wish to live in a society or community, but rather be on your own. Is that the case? With regard to your comment about government vs government wars: Did it occur to you that these wars might be a direct result of the fact that there is no authoritative force on the level of countries/states which is able to internalize conflicts? On the level of governments there is actually a defacto anarchy, which consequentially leads to armed conflicts. A thoughtful post, like a breath of fresh air. I am quite sure what I advocate however, and it is that we live without initiating violence against each other.
So you would not - under any circumstance - use violence if individuals don't follow the rules of a community? You realize that you could not enforce those rules then and that societies - by definition - develop rules (or codes of conduct), right? It seemed to me that you were rather against a certain rule ("every citizen with an income has to pay tax") than against the fact that rules need to be enforced (or otherwise are meaningless).
I do wish to live in a community, and it is quite possible for a community to exist without having to initiate violence against it's own. I fully support the idea of a violent self defense, and a violent retaliation when the time for self defense has passed. I do not support the idea of using violence, to accomplish a goal, to steal from someone "for his own good", or for the so called good of society.
I am glad the you do realize the anarchy is the true nature of our world, as it is the state in which governments exist with each other, and yes, sometimes fights do erupt. A "de facto anarchy" as you called it.
Mankind has built up these governments, and it has accomplished nothing. Instead of a few guys shooting each other in the streets, we have nations massacring each other. All we have done is increase the levels of power, control, and destruction, by funding government and creating these behemoths.
What exactly do you mean by "it has accomplished nothing"? Looking at the technological advances and the quality of living when compared to say 100 years ago, I come to a completely different assessment. Do you think it is mere coincidence that the most advanced (by technological and demographical standards) countries happen to be those with a stable political system in the form of a "state" (more specifically a democratic state in recent history)?
|
Why would taxes ever be voluntary? Do people think they have some right to live in America and not contribute to the overall well-being of the country? The US isn't suffering from a deficiency of inhabitants last time I checked. People don't just get to live for free in a country and get the benefits of living in a country. It's not free to live in the US. The price is tax.
If you don't want to pay tax, I suppose you could move to a remote island. But of course, you won't receive certain benefits, like say, roads, and, uh, civilization. But then of course, it's way cheaper to build a civilization than it is to pay tax right?
|
This is silly but I hope you guys do understand, SS and Medicare are more about distribution of wealth than they are for individuals right?
Obviously the rich won't need retirement help or government healthcare... but hundreds of thousands of others do. So the government takes a % from everyone and then redistributes it to the masses.
Sigh I can't believe I had to explain that...
|
I always get so sad when I read threads like these. The ignorance is so huge. Always just thinking about yourself.
Probably 8 out of 10 would be better off with not paying taxes. But then the 2 left will be so much more worse than they would if everyone helped out.
"Give, and it will be given to you " Luke 6:39
If you give others you will get back more than it will be to be greedy or just think of yourself. The society would be a lot better off if everyone chipped inn. It would not just improve theirs life quality, but it would also effect yours. It would greatly stabilize the society, nobody would even have to be afraid that they got seriously sick or injured. Everyone could live and know that if something unexpected happens to you, it would always be taken care off even if you are poor or rich. To be affraid to go to the hospital just cuz you are to poor, or have to die of a easily treated illness that could be treated if you had some money instead of being poor, which in the first place never was your fault.
And I can tell you texasjoe1983, that it is not you who made it so that you had a good/decent/great life.
|
Nope. This is economics 101, maybe 102. Very small number of people would.
|
I totally would not pay Social Security if I didn't have to. I can manage my own retirement, thank you very much. It's only put in place to protect those dumb enough who can't.
For example, many people know about the benefits of 401ks, but they're too lazy (or stupid) to enroll in it. However, if they're initially forced to enroll and given the option to opt out, the majority has shown that they will not.
As for tax in general, no one will voluntarily pay tax when given the option. There's a sales tax in California. If you buy online, certain merchants will not charge sales tax. Every year, you're supposed to calculate how much sales tax you were supposed to pay to these merchants, and include it in your state tax forms. There's even an option to apply your tax return to this.
NO ONE I know does that.
(Granted, they'll go after you if you buy something expensive like an airplane or a boat, but the average citizen would never say they owe $200 in sales tax and voluntarily pay it off.)
|
On February 02 2011 01:43 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 01:36 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On February 02 2011 01:08 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 01:05 MiniRoman wrote:On February 01 2011 17:05 Morfildur wrote:On February 01 2011 16:57 LyRa wrote:
If they were optional and people had the choice not to pay - they probably wouldn't. Yep, because people in general are stupid. Those taxes are not just for your future, they are for those who already need the money. You are giving the money to the community, so those that are retired already can use it, people that are ill can get medical care, etc. In turn for paying those taxes you can expect people to pay for you when you get old or require medical care. I don't know the correct english term, but in germany we call it a "generation contract". This generation pays for the previous, so the next will pay for us, knowing that those after them will pay for them. Of course this doesn't work in the selfish USA, where everyone only cares about himself. I pay my taxes and would pay them if they were voluntary, i don't even care about getting any tax refunds because in the end, the money will be used for the community and i trust in the government to use it to it's best ability for the good of everyone. User was temp banned for this post. Was he banned cause he said selfish america? Look at the poll results. Banners been riduclous lately. I got banned for "being a douche" in the swearing/opinion thread when the guy specifically asked if he sounded stupid. wtf tl. Edit: to be on topic. Yes, I like Canada's tax system and our social security programs. I'm glad I live here. So people who don't want to pay a bankrupt government to fund a bankrupt program are either selfish or stupid? You can't really compare Canada or any other country's social programs to the USA, you aren't wasting your money on half the world's military budget. If US wasn't, it could afford all sorts of social programs and still have lower taxes than it has right now. Wish I was born there, I would be glad too. Have you ever looked at the budget. Our defense budget, appropriations for wars, and military contracts aren't even close to what we spent on our social programs already. Even if you reduced all our military spending to 0 we'd have trouble coming up even. Keep in mind that military is the ONLY reason gov't exists. It's why people made gov'ts in the first place, it's the only power that the founding fathers wanted the federal gov't to truly have, and it's why we have the power system we do. We might spend a ton of money compared to the rest of the world, but for a nation with our economy and GDP it's not actually that much. In the end, we could take on the entire world's armed forces if we had to. That kind of security is what we pay for. If you don't value security, don't have gov't. Canada would be conquered by the Japanese or Russians or someone else by now if it wasn't for the US. Think about that one. Forming a military is the only reason for governments to exist? You can't seriously believe that, can you?
It's not a belief, it's a fact. All societies are built around the idea of protection, that in groups you're safer from outside threats than individually. Ever since the stone age, mankind has been grouping together so that they could hunt large prey safely. When farming replaced foraging, people had to bind together in communities to protect their work, their crops, from outside threats, such as raids from other tribes. In feudal england, nobles pledged loyalty to the king to protect their lands by paying a tax to the king so that he would use his army to defend them.
Name one reason why gov't should exist beyond defense.
|
On February 02 2011 01:57 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 01:43 Haemonculus wrote:On February 02 2011 01:36 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On February 02 2011 01:08 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 01:05 MiniRoman wrote:On February 01 2011 17:05 Morfildur wrote:On February 01 2011 16:57 LyRa wrote:
If they were optional and people had the choice not to pay - they probably wouldn't. Yep, because people in general are stupid. Those taxes are not just for your future, they are for those who already need the money. You are giving the money to the community, so those that are retired already can use it, people that are ill can get medical care, etc. In turn for paying those taxes you can expect people to pay for you when you get old or require medical care. I don't know the correct english term, but in germany we call it a "generation contract". This generation pays for the previous, so the next will pay for us, knowing that those after them will pay for them. Of course this doesn't work in the selfish USA, where everyone only cares about himself. I pay my taxes and would pay them if they were voluntary, i don't even care about getting any tax refunds because in the end, the money will be used for the community and i trust in the government to use it to it's best ability for the good of everyone. User was temp banned for this post. Was he banned cause he said selfish america? Look at the poll results. Banners been riduclous lately. I got banned for "being a douche" in the swearing/opinion thread when the guy specifically asked if he sounded stupid. wtf tl. Edit: to be on topic. Yes, I like Canada's tax system and our social security programs. I'm glad I live here. So people who don't want to pay a bankrupt government to fund a bankrupt program are either selfish or stupid? You can't really compare Canada or any other country's social programs to the USA, you aren't wasting your money on half the world's military budget. If US wasn't, it could afford all sorts of social programs and still have lower taxes than it has right now. Wish I was born there, I would be glad too. Have you ever looked at the budget. Our defense budget, appropriations for wars, and military contracts aren't even close to what we spent on our social programs already. Even if you reduced all our military spending to 0 we'd have trouble coming up even. Keep in mind that military is the ONLY reason gov't exists. It's why people made gov'ts in the first place, it's the only power that the founding fathers wanted the federal gov't to truly have, and it's why we have the power system we do. We might spend a ton of money compared to the rest of the world, but for a nation with our economy and GDP it's not actually that much. In the end, we could take on the entire world's armed forces if we had to. That kind of security is what we pay for. If you don't value security, don't have gov't. Canada would be conquered by the Japanese or Russians or someone else by now if it wasn't for the US. Think about that one. Forming a military is the only reason for governments to exist? You can't seriously believe that, can you? It's not a belief, it's a fact. All societies are built around the idea of protection, that in groups you're safer from outside threats than individually. Ever since the stone age, mankind has been grouping together so that they could hunt large prey safely. When farming replaced foraging, people had to bind together in communities to protect their work, their crops, from outside threats, such as raids from other tribes. In feudal england, nobles pledged loyalty to the king to protect their lands by paying a tax to the king so that he would use his army to defend them. Name one reason why gov't should exist beyond defense.
It is not a fact... Stop spewing off random beliefs of beliefs being facts.
|
On February 02 2011 01:48 Neivler wrote:
"Give, and it will be given to you " Luke 6:39
If you give others you will get back more than it will be to be greedy or just think of yourself.
That verse that some dude wrote was written to brainwash people into tithing.
The problem with that is, It's not greedy to want to keep your own money. Nor is it greedy to not want to give your money to people who did not earn it.
|
On February 02 2011 02:02 Scorcher2k wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 01:57 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On February 02 2011 01:43 Haemonculus wrote:On February 02 2011 01:36 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On February 02 2011 01:08 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 01:05 MiniRoman wrote:On February 01 2011 17:05 Morfildur wrote:On February 01 2011 16:57 LyRa wrote:
If they were optional and people had the choice not to pay - they probably wouldn't. Yep, because people in general are stupid. Those taxes are not just for your future, they are for those who already need the money. You are giving the money to the community, so those that are retired already can use it, people that are ill can get medical care, etc. In turn for paying those taxes you can expect people to pay for you when you get old or require medical care. I don't know the correct english term, but in germany we call it a "generation contract". This generation pays for the previous, so the next will pay for us, knowing that those after them will pay for them. Of course this doesn't work in the selfish USA, where everyone only cares about himself. I pay my taxes and would pay them if they were voluntary, i don't even care about getting any tax refunds because in the end, the money will be used for the community and i trust in the government to use it to it's best ability for the good of everyone. User was temp banned for this post. Was he banned cause he said selfish america? Look at the poll results. Banners been riduclous lately. I got banned for "being a douche" in the swearing/opinion thread when the guy specifically asked if he sounded stupid. wtf tl. Edit: to be on topic. Yes, I like Canada's tax system and our social security programs. I'm glad I live here. So people who don't want to pay a bankrupt government to fund a bankrupt program are either selfish or stupid? You can't really compare Canada or any other country's social programs to the USA, you aren't wasting your money on half the world's military budget. If US wasn't, it could afford all sorts of social programs and still have lower taxes than it has right now. Wish I was born there, I would be glad too. Have you ever looked at the budget. Our defense budget, appropriations for wars, and military contracts aren't even close to what we spent on our social programs already. Even if you reduced all our military spending to 0 we'd have trouble coming up even. Keep in mind that military is the ONLY reason gov't exists. It's why people made gov'ts in the first place, it's the only power that the founding fathers wanted the federal gov't to truly have, and it's why we have the power system we do. We might spend a ton of money compared to the rest of the world, but for a nation with our economy and GDP it's not actually that much. In the end, we could take on the entire world's armed forces if we had to. That kind of security is what we pay for. If you don't value security, don't have gov't. Canada would be conquered by the Japanese or Russians or someone else by now if it wasn't for the US. Think about that one. Forming a military is the only reason for governments to exist? You can't seriously believe that, can you? It's not a belief, it's a fact. All societies are built around the idea of protection, that in groups you're safer from outside threats than individually. Ever since the stone age, mankind has been grouping together so that they could hunt large prey safely. When farming replaced foraging, people had to bind together in communities to protect their work, their crops, from outside threats, such as raids from other tribes. In feudal england, nobles pledged loyalty to the king to protect their lands by paying a tax to the king so that he would use his army to defend them. Name one reason why gov't should exist beyond defense. It is not a fact... Stop spewing off random beliefs of beliefs being facts.
A true gem of a counterargument. Why don't you refute my statement with evidence? Talk to any anthropologist, it's fact.
|
lol if i see this in my phD economics examination i gonna worry where i had spent my money in
|
On February 02 2011 01:48 Neivler wrote:
I always get so sad when I read threads like these. The ignorance is so huge. Always just thinking about yourself.
Probably 8 out of 10 would be better off with not paying taxes. But then the 2 left will be so much more worse than they would if everyone helped out.
"Give, and it will be given to you " Luke 6:39
If you give others you will get back more than it will be to be greedy or just think of yourself. The society would be a lot better off if everyone chipped inn. It would not just improve theirs life quality, but it would also effect yours. It would greatly stabilize the society, nobody would even have to be afraid that they got seriously sick or injured. Everyone could live and know that if something unexpected happens to you, it would always be taken care off even if you are poor or rich. To be affraid to go to the hospital just cuz you are to poor, or have to die of a easily treated illness that could be treated if you had some money instead of being poor, which in the first place never was your fault.
And I can tell you texasjoe1983, that it is not you who made it so that you had a good/decent/great life.
2 Thessalonians 3:10
For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.
Neivler, don't pretend to know me. I made my own life. I was in such a squalor I had no job, no pride, and no hope. I snapped, manned up, and climbed out of that hole.
Charity is a great thing. It catches those falling through the cracks. I practice charity much more now that I have lived through my own period of poverty. Who are you, or anybody else, however, to impose that on the people who do not want to give?
It's fine to help people out! I encourage it! I find it disgusting, however, when people think it's right to spend other people's money for what they think is a good idea.
Exodus 20:15
Thou shalt not steal.
|
Are you asking me if I would volunteer my money to be in a government sponsered ponzi scheme? Absolutely not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme
Social Security fits that definition quite nicely.
Actually I just thinking about a good constitutional admendment might be "All legislation that does not directly protect individuals rights or regulate commerce between the states should be optional and voluntary and should not penalize people for not participating.
There goes public schooling, social security, welfare, medicare, and minimum wage. All of the things preventing the US from becoming an economic powerhouse again.
(I'm not neccesarily against those things, but they can be handled at the state level instead of the federal level. Why the heck is there a federal minimum wage?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
