|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 17 2023 12:46 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2023 06:01 micronesia wrote:On August 17 2023 02:52 Simberto wrote:On August 17 2023 02:21 Uldridge wrote:On August 17 2023 01:09 oBlade wrote:
You ignored cars because probably you see it's inconvenient - Cars are necessary in some locations. But is it necessary to live in those locations? Just because cars are necessary, does that mean you need the Audi? If you get the Audi, is it your neighbor's job to pay for it when he's got a 30 year old Honda? Would he have gotten an Audi too if he knew the game was going to change?
The fact that education is a benefit to society doesn't divide into that any specific level is necessary for each member of it. Nor that it's our job to pay for it. This is the same with housing. I want a 6bed 4bath waterfront with a runway. What's "necessary."
It's beneficial for an airplane to be lighter, that's not cause enough to make the wings out of paper or perform liposuction on every passenger.
If the education WERE so necessary for each of the members in question here, they would have the income to show for it that would enable them to kick their debt to the curb easily.
Is the internet not a societal necessity? A public option for ISPs and telecoms would be nice, but that doesn't take into account people who can't handle drowning in the monthly costs of their phone and data and internet plans. Surely they need some relief. Seems like large snippets in your response you conflate necessities and luxuries some more. Why shouldn't a society collectively be burdoned by itself as a whole? Why take such an isolatory approach to marginally aiding a fellow citizen? Agreeing on base necessities is how we move forward, these base necessities shift accordingly with the technological advancements. If 1% of people owns 50% of the capital, is it so much to ask to share some of it to house people freely, or at least more affordably so that they have less stressful lives? I've yet to see a truly convincing case to not help the people that make up your base workforce that are stuck in some dystopian cycle of trying to make ends meet, while making "Mr I make 10000x times more than you because I got to get a business degree on daddies money" disproportionately more and more money as time goes on. On August 17 2023 02:16 Zambrah wrote:On August 16 2023 23:15 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2023 22:50 Zambrah wrote:On August 16 2023 22:33 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2023 22:19 Zambrah wrote:
lmao, right, Millenials are offered just so many of the massive perks being a Boomer has gotten people, we have so much access to things like affordable housing and high wages, we're so lucky and blessed. Millenials have been spoiled by life just as much as Boomers for sure!
Its a losing issue with sociopaths who believe that because they have suffered so too must everyone else. You're interested in affordable housing. How do you feel about canceling housing debt (mortgages)? Free housing sounds like it'd be great Free cars too. What else can we finance and cancel so we can get for free? How about rolexes? Some nice latest generation computers. A boat? Private plane? Free internet and public transport sounds like it'd be pretty great too, tbh What about free healthcare? Or supermarkets providing items at a price that doesn't reflect profit chasing - for water at least, but we can include water and sugar and fat and eggs in that category. Or better yet, cut out the supermarkets for milk and eggs and meats alltogether. Water: I think a government which is not capable of delivering drinkable water through the pipes into peoples homes is failing its job as a government of a country. After air, drinkable water is the most important and pressing human need. Far ahead of even food. And we have a system that works, and is incredibly cheap. It also produces little to no waste. Why do so many countries not manage to get drinkable water through their pipes into peoples homes? I was in italy and saw a guy load a full cart with the cheapest bottled drinking water available. Why is that necessary? It produces so much senseless waste and effort. Some exceptions may be made for remote areas which are really far off the grid. But for anything close to civilization, not having drinkable water coming out of the pipes should be a major emberassment for the government. My neighborhood is a five minute drive from some dense suburban areas yet I have no water or sanitary sewer services. Not uncommon in the US. That’s pretty strange. There is so much strange shit in the US for how much money the country has.
Theres a lot of smaller townships that have lower taxes and dont have these services. It makes sense when you figure they only really started getting people in these areas 50 years ago and the populations can be small for the actual tax base.
Im on well and septic myself. We are getting city water in a few years but no sewer. Those projects are huge and expensive if the areas are already built up.
TBH if it wasnt for the whole emerging PFAS thing id stick to my well. I am sure at some point in the future if PFAS leaches into private wells it will be prohibitively expensive for a household to remediate on their own. Hopefully that doesnt happen but I figure getting on city services would at least spread the cost around if it ever does.
|
|
|
The notion that its to expensive to build water and sewage in already build up areas is just weird to me, surely step 1 before you start building up an area is to lay water, sewage and electrical pipes?
Is this some foreign concept in the US?
|
On August 18 2023 03:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2023 01:58 Sadist wrote:On August 17 2023 12:46 JimmiC wrote:On August 17 2023 06:01 micronesia wrote:On August 17 2023 02:52 Simberto wrote:On August 17 2023 02:21 Uldridge wrote:On August 17 2023 01:09 oBlade wrote:
You ignored cars because probably you see it's inconvenient - Cars are necessary in some locations. But is it necessary to live in those locations? Just because cars are necessary, does that mean you need the Audi? If you get the Audi, is it your neighbor's job to pay for it when he's got a 30 year old Honda? Would he have gotten an Audi too if he knew the game was going to change?
The fact that education is a benefit to society doesn't divide into that any specific level is necessary for each member of it. Nor that it's our job to pay for it. This is the same with housing. I want a 6bed 4bath waterfront with a runway. What's "necessary."
It's beneficial for an airplane to be lighter, that's not cause enough to make the wings out of paper or perform liposuction on every passenger.
If the education WERE so necessary for each of the members in question here, they would have the income to show for it that would enable them to kick their debt to the curb easily.
Is the internet not a societal necessity? A public option for ISPs and telecoms would be nice, but that doesn't take into account people who can't handle drowning in the monthly costs of their phone and data and internet plans. Surely they need some relief. Seems like large snippets in your response you conflate necessities and luxuries some more. Why shouldn't a society collectively be burdoned by itself as a whole? Why take such an isolatory approach to marginally aiding a fellow citizen? Agreeing on base necessities is how we move forward, these base necessities shift accordingly with the technological advancements. If 1% of people owns 50% of the capital, is it so much to ask to share some of it to house people freely, or at least more affordably so that they have less stressful lives? I've yet to see a truly convincing case to not help the people that make up your base workforce that are stuck in some dystopian cycle of trying to make ends meet, while making "Mr I make 10000x times more than you because I got to get a business degree on daddies money" disproportionately more and more money as time goes on. On August 17 2023 02:16 Zambrah wrote:On August 16 2023 23:15 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2023 22:50 Zambrah wrote:On August 16 2023 22:33 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
You're interested in affordable housing. How do you feel about canceling housing debt (mortgages)? Free housing sounds like it'd be great Free cars too. What else can we finance and cancel so we can get for free? How about rolexes? Some nice latest generation computers. A boat? Private plane? Free internet and public transport sounds like it'd be pretty great too, tbh What about free healthcare? Or supermarkets providing items at a price that doesn't reflect profit chasing - for water at least, but we can include water and sugar and fat and eggs in that category. Or better yet, cut out the supermarkets for milk and eggs and meats alltogether. Water: I think a government which is not capable of delivering drinkable water through the pipes into peoples homes is failing its job as a government of a country. After air, drinkable water is the most important and pressing human need. Far ahead of even food. And we have a system that works, and is incredibly cheap. It also produces little to no waste. Why do so many countries not manage to get drinkable water through their pipes into peoples homes? I was in italy and saw a guy load a full cart with the cheapest bottled drinking water available. Why is that necessary? It produces so much senseless waste and effort. Some exceptions may be made for remote areas which are really far off the grid. But for anything close to civilization, not having drinkable water coming out of the pipes should be a major emberassment for the government. My neighborhood is a five minute drive from some dense suburban areas yet I have no water or sanitary sewer services. Not uncommon in the US. That’s pretty strange. There is so much strange shit in the US for how much money the country has. Theres a lot of smaller townships that have lower taxes and dont have these services. It makes sense when you figure they only really started getting people in these areas 50 years ago and the populations can be small for the actual tax base. Im on well and septic myself. We are getting city water in a few years but no sewer. Those projects are huge and expensive if the areas are already built up. TBH if it wasnt for the whole emerging PFAS thing id stick to my well. I am sure at some point in the future if PFAS leaches into private wells it will be prohibitively expensive for a household to remediate on their own. Hopefully that doesnt happen but I figure getting on city services would at least spread the cost around if it ever does. For us basically every town has water and sewer, acreages, farms would have septic and wells. I do not think our population build up has been any different, if anything slower and smaller. I think the US all taxes are bad no matter what attitude causes you to miss out on the value of cooperation that long term can keep costs down not to mention just be better for everyone. I wish people were more worried about the value they get from their taxes than the rate. I think it is a much more valuable conversation.
Easy to say from our position, assuming you still live in Alberta. We pay pretty low tax rates, and a lot of our infrastructure came from oil money. Not saying you're wrong, just pointing to your average worker's tax payment would have amounted to dick all where we live, and we got 'carried' as it were by bigger money.
|
On August 18 2023 03:25 Gorsameth wrote:
The notion that its to expensive to build water and sewage in already build up areas is just weird to me, surely step 1 before you start building up an area is to lay water, sewage and electrical pipes?
Is this some foreign concept in the US?
Infrastructure and competent city planning are foreign concepts over here, yes. Don't expect to realistically be able to walk anywhere, don't expect worthwhile public transportation, don't expect your town to provide water and if it does don't expect it to be safe to drink, etc. There are plenty of places that have walkable neighborhoods, reliable public transportation, clean drinking water, a sewage system, etc. But it's most certainly not guaranteed outside of a major city and its surrounding suburbs, and even then some of those suburbs might be lacking in some basic public services.
|
|
|
On August 18 2023 03:25 Gorsameth wrote:
The notion that its to expensive to build water and sewage in already build up areas is just weird to me, surely step 1 before you start building up an area is to lay water, sewage and electrical pipes?
Is this some foreign concept in the US?
Areas build up in different ways. In my HS town, my neighborhood had city water, but if you walked like 4 blocks from my house you got to a different, older, neighborhood where everyone had well water and septics. The older neighborhood had been built 1 house at a time, slowly over about 20 years when it was still on the outskirts of the city. My neighborhood was built by a single company as a planned subdivision when the city had already expanded so that now it was close to major stores, restaurants, the cinema, etc.
|
We are talking about the US not India right? This is mindboggling.
|
|
|
On August 18 2023 14:15 Velr wrote:
We are talking about the US not India right? This is mindboggling.
The US is way bigger than most people realize. Because of this the population density is much lower than people expect.
It can be tricky to fund this stuff when a towns population is like 2000 and the tax base is small and everyone is spread out. Federal money usually doesnt cover stuff like water & sewer.
Having a septic tank isnt so bad if it works well. I know several people who have city sewer connections and if theres a deluge of storm water or tree roots have gotten into the pipes the sewer will back up into their basement and the city wont pay for repairs.
|
On August 18 2023 19:39 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2023 14:15 Velr wrote:
We are talking about the US not India right? This is mindboggling. The US is way bigger than most people realize. Because of this the population density is much lower than people expect. It can be tricky to fund this stuff when a towns population is like 2000 and the tax base is small and everyone is spread out. Federal money usually doesnt cover stuff like water & sewer. Having a septic tank isnt so bad if it works well. I know several people who have city sewer connections and if theres a deluge of storm water or tree roots have gotten into the pipes the sewer will back up into their basement and the city wont pay for repairs.
I just had a quick google and only found news for one town in Spain that has no running water infrastructure (Fuentes de Agreda population: 1), although admittedly this is not exactly a foolproof metric. All the other news items talk about drought causing shortages or water unsuitable for consumption, but the infrastructure is there. Spain also has very sparsely populated areas, particularly near the middle of the country with population densities over large stretches around 1-10 people/km^2, which I believe is similar to what you're referring to.
If Spain (not exactly topping anyone's richest countries list) can manage to link up historical small towns to the water supply, it is fairly mindboggling to see that one of the richest countries on the planet can't manage this fairly pedestrian feat, in all honesty.
|
A town with 2000 people not having a sewage system in a modern country isn't "normal", no matter how you put it.
In Switzerland there is a law, since 1991, that buildings have to be connected to the sewage system. 98% of them are connected. This includes small towns in the mountains and so on....
Google translate of a cantonal (~state) law as example: https://www.fr.ch/sites/default/files/2019-12/eaux_usees_obligation_raccorder_de.pdf3.1 Construction zone Within the building zones, all buildings, including the residential buildings of farms, must be connected (Art. 11 para. 2 letter a GSchG). 3.2 Outside the construction zone The area of public sewers also includes the buildings outside the building zones for the the connection to the sewage network if appropriate and reasonable (Art. 11 Para. 2 Letter c GSchG). In practice the connection of polluted waste water to the public sewage system outside of building zones is expedient if it can be produced without any problems (according to state of the art technology) and with normal structural effort. (Article 12 paragraph 1 letter a GSchV). In rare cases, it may be due to topographical reasons or because of difficult ground conditions, prove that a connection is not justified. The fact that the sewage has to be pumped, according to case law, does not justify a release from the connection obligation
In short: It's plain illegal to build and not be connected to a sewage system if there are not serious topographical reasons for it, being "a bit too far away" or "it would be expensive" aren't such reasons.
|
On August 18 2023 20:19 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2023 19:39 Sadist wrote:On August 18 2023 14:15 Velr wrote:
We are talking about the US not India right? This is mindboggling. The US is way bigger than most people realize. Because of this the population density is much lower than people expect. It can be tricky to fund this stuff when a towns population is like 2000 and the tax base is small and everyone is spread out. Federal money usually doesnt cover stuff like water & sewer. Having a septic tank isnt so bad if it works well. I know several people who have city sewer connections and if theres a deluge of storm water or tree roots have gotten into the pipes the sewer will back up into their basement and the city wont pay for repairs. I just had a quick google and only found news for one town in Spain that has no running water infrastructure ( Fuentes de Agreda population: 1), although admittedly this is not exactly a foolproof metric. All the other news items talk about drought causing shortages or water unsuitable for consumption, but the infrastructure is there. Spain also has very sparsely populated areas, particularly near the middle of the country with population densities over large stretches around 1-10 people/km^2, which I believe is similar to what you're referring to. If Spain (not exactly topping anyone's richest countries list) can manage to link up historical small towns to the water supply, it is fairly mindboggling to see that one of the richest countries on the planet can't manage this fairly pedestrian feat, in all honesty.
I agree that I cannot really think of anywhere that isn't connected to running water. Even tiny hamlets in the Pyrenees with like 20 inhabitants have running water. Of course, it might actually be easier there, as mountain water is pretty abundant and pure, but still, the same goes for tiny hamlets in the middle of Extremadura or Almería. They have running water. Plumbing and electricity is a bit trickier and I've stayed at rural B&Bs that have a septic tank and rely on solar panels on their roof for electricity. That said, a septic tank is a reasonable solution, probably a lot more reasonable than trying to connect all the farms in outlying regions to some kind of municipal sewer.
|
|
|
On August 18 2023 20:21 Velr wrote:A town with 2000 people not having a sewage system in a modern country isn't "normal", no matter how you put it. In Switzerland there is a law, since 1991, that buildings have to be connected to the sewage system. 98% of them are connected. This includes small towns in the mountains and so on.... Show nested quote +Google translate of a cantonal (~state) law as example: https://www.fr.ch/sites/default/files/2019-12/eaux_usees_obligation_raccorder_de.pdf3.1 Construction zone Within the building zones, all buildings, including the residential buildings of farms, must be connected (Art. 11 para. 2 letter a GSchG). 3.2 Outside the construction zone The area of public sewers also includes the buildings outside the building zones for the the connection to the sewage network if appropriate and reasonable (Art. 11 Para. 2 Letter c GSchG). In practice the connection of polluted waste water to the public sewage system outside of building zones is expedient if it can be produced without any problems (according to state of the art technology) and with normal structural effort. (Article 12 paragraph 1 letter a GSchV). In rare cases, it may be due to topographical reasons or because of difficult ground conditions, prove that a connection is not justified. The fact that the sewage has to be pumped, according to case law, does not justify a release from the connection obligation In short: It's plain illegal to build and not be connected to a sewage system if there are not serious topographical reasons for it, being "a bit too far away" or "it would be expensive" aren't such reasons.
the state of texas alone is 17x the size of switzerland. we have 49 other states in the union. I don’t know if your perception of ‘too far away’ really applies.
a better comparison of size for a given country might be Australia, where i have doubts the whole country is fitted for sewages and water.
On August 18 2023 21:08 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2023 20:19 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 18 2023 19:39 Sadist wrote:On August 18 2023 14:15 Velr wrote:
We are talking about the US not India right? This is mindboggling. The US is way bigger than most people realize. Because of this the population density is much lower than people expect. It can be tricky to fund this stuff when a towns population is like 2000 and the tax base is small and everyone is spread out. Federal money usually doesnt cover stuff like water & sewer. Having a septic tank isnt so bad if it works well. I know several people who have city sewer connections and if theres a deluge of storm water or tree roots have gotten into the pipes the sewer will back up into their basement and the city wont pay for repairs. I just had a quick google and only found news for one town in Spain that has no running water infrastructure ( Fuentes de Agreda population: 1), although admittedly this is not exactly a foolproof metric. All the other news items talk about drought causing shortages or water unsuitable for consumption, but the infrastructure is there. Spain also has very sparsely populated areas, particularly near the middle of the country with population densities over large stretches around 1-10 people/km^2, which I believe is similar to what you're referring to. If Spain (not exactly topping anyone's richest countries list) can manage to link up historical small towns to the water supply, it is fairly mindboggling to see that one of the richest countries on the planet can't manage this fairly pedestrian feat, in all honesty. I agree that I cannot really think of anywhere that isn't connected to running water. Even tiny hamlets in the Pyrenees with like 20 inhabitants have running water. Of course, it might actually be easier there, as mountain water is pretty abundant and pure, but still, the same goes for tiny hamlets in the middle of Extremadura or Almería. They have running water. Plumbing and electricity is a bit trickier and I've stayed at rural B&Bs that have a septic tank and rely on solar panels on their roof for electricity. That said, a septic tank is a reasonable solution, probably a lot more reasonable than trying to connect all the farms in outlying regions to some kind of municipal sewer.
well water, for practical use, is running water. you can turn on a faucet and do laundry. the limitation is usually like- don’t plan to do three loads of laundry and have five people shower in a given day.
|
On August 18 2023 22:39 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2023 20:21 Velr wrote:A town with 2000 people not having a sewage system in a modern country isn't "normal", no matter how you put it. In Switzerland there is a law, since 1991, that buildings have to be connected to the sewage system. 98% of them are connected. This includes small towns in the mountains and so on.... Google translate of a cantonal (~state) law as example: https://www.fr.ch/sites/default/files/2019-12/eaux_usees_obligation_raccorder_de.pdf3.1 Construction zone Within the building zones, all buildings, including the residential buildings of farms, must be connected (Art. 11 para. 2 letter a GSchG). 3.2 Outside the construction zone The area of public sewers also includes the buildings outside the building zones for the the connection to the sewage network if appropriate and reasonable (Art. 11 Para. 2 Letter c GSchG). In practice the connection of polluted waste water to the public sewage system outside of building zones is expedient if it can be produced without any problems (according to state of the art technology) and with normal structural effort. (Article 12 paragraph 1 letter a GSchV). In rare cases, it may be due to topographical reasons or because of difficult ground conditions, prove that a connection is not justified. The fact that the sewage has to be pumped, according to case law, does not justify a release from the connection obligation In short: It's plain illegal to build and not be connected to a sewage system if there are not serious topographical reasons for it, being "a bit too far away" or "it would be expensive" aren't such reasons. the state of texas alone is 17x the size of switzerland. we have 49 other states in the union. I don’t know if your perception of ‘too far away’ really applies. a better comparison of size for a given country might be Australia, where i have doubts the whole country is fitted for sewages and water. Show nested quote +On August 18 2023 21:08 Acrofales wrote:On August 18 2023 20:19 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 18 2023 19:39 Sadist wrote:On August 18 2023 14:15 Velr wrote:
We are talking about the US not India right? This is mindboggling. The US is way bigger than most people realize. Because of this the population density is much lower than people expect. It can be tricky to fund this stuff when a towns population is like 2000 and the tax base is small and everyone is spread out. Federal money usually doesnt cover stuff like water & sewer. Having a septic tank isnt so bad if it works well. I know several people who have city sewer connections and if theres a deluge of storm water or tree roots have gotten into the pipes the sewer will back up into their basement and the city wont pay for repairs. I just had a quick google and only found news for one town in Spain that has no running water infrastructure ( Fuentes de Agreda population: 1), although admittedly this is not exactly a foolproof metric. All the other news items talk about drought causing shortages or water unsuitable for consumption, but the infrastructure is there. Spain also has very sparsely populated areas, particularly near the middle of the country with population densities over large stretches around 1-10 people/km^2, which I believe is similar to what you're referring to. If Spain (not exactly topping anyone's richest countries list) can manage to link up historical small towns to the water supply, it is fairly mindboggling to see that one of the richest countries on the planet can't manage this fairly pedestrian feat, in all honesty. I agree that I cannot really think of anywhere that isn't connected to running water. Even tiny hamlets in the Pyrenees with like 20 inhabitants have running water. Of course, it might actually be easier there, as mountain water is pretty abundant and pure, but still, the same goes for tiny hamlets in the middle of Extremadura or Almería. They have running water. Plumbing and electricity is a bit trickier and I've stayed at rural B&Bs that have a septic tank and rely on solar panels on their roof for electricity. That said, a septic tank is a reasonable solution, probably a lot more reasonable than trying to connect all the farms in outlying regions to some kind of municipal sewer.
well water, for practical use, is running water. you can turn on a faucet and do laundry. the limitation is usually like- don’t plan to do three loads of laundry and have five people shower in a given day.
Realistically there should be no problem with this. If there are any concerns with the well running dry you have bigger issues. People fill swimming pools with well water. You risk burning your well pump out by doing that but the amount of water shouldnt be a concern.
But ya to be clear I am not sure if people are imaging no running water and pooping in a ditch but thats not it. Its exactly like being on city water and sewage except you have a well pump and probably a water softener and your septic gets pumped every few years for a couple hundred bucks.
It also would be interesting to compare population densities for Canada and the US and control for urban centers. I have a feeling a higher percentage of Canadas populations live in larger cities than the US. My rationale could be wrong but even though the US has 320 million people we dont have nearly as many cities on the highest population list as one may expect. Additionally, we dont really have any "Mega Cities" other than NYC. In short, there are a shocking amount of suburbs, small towns, etc compared to some more highly urbanized countries.
|
I have well water and a septic system at my house (New Jersey, pretty nice but rural-ish area) and have experienced zero limitations. We use as much water as we want, flush the same toilet paper we used to in our previous homes, etc. You wouldn't know we had well water and a septic system unless I told you.
Maybe they've been modernized or upgraded compared to what they used to be, or maybe I'm just lucky, but I'm fine with my situation and I'm actually saving a little money as long as I remember to check up on them once or twice a year.
On August 18 2023 23:04 Sadist wrote:
But ya to be clear I am not sure if people are imaging no running water and pooping in a ditch but thats not it. Its exactly like being on city water and sewage except you have a well pump and probably a water softener and your septic gets pumped every few years for a couple hundred bucks.
This is exactly my experience.
|
Iirc the original start of this discussion was about potable water not coming from the tap, but the bottle. I guess having it come from your tap is a nice luxury to have.
We still have a lot of farmers using well water for pretty much everything, although they get are prohibited to pump during extreme dry periods.
I have a nice idea for a future suburban organisation, but I'm not sure we're ready for that yet, although the technology is nearly there.
|
Ya you wouldnt be able to build any kind of house or residence legally in the US without potable water or some type of sewer management. If thats what you guys were assuming thats way off  .
I grew up and lived in places with city water and sewer my whole life until I bought my house and got a well and septic and it was all new for me too. Its actually a really interesting. Could be a whole other thread topic.
Back to relating it to US politics though, for what we pay in Taxes in the US we sure dont seemingly get much for it. At least tangible to the average American. Poor infastructure, exorbitant medical charges, lack of safety net. Thats another thing that would be interesting to study compared to higher taxed countries. I have a feeling in the US it just lines pockets of those with the right comnections or know how to work the system. We are getting gouged heavily for how much we are taxed. I am all for paying higher taxes for a better social safety net/infrastructure but the effectiveness needs to be improved too
|
On August 18 2023 21:57 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2023 19:39 Sadist wrote:On August 18 2023 14:15 Velr wrote:
We are talking about the US not India right? This is mindboggling. The US is way bigger than most people realize. Because of this the population density is much lower than people expect. It can be tricky to fund this stuff when a towns population is like 2000 and the tax base is small and everyone is spread out. Federal money usually doesnt cover stuff like water & sewer. Having a septic tank isnt so bad if it works well. I know several people who have city sewer connections and if theres a deluge of storm water or tree roots have gotten into the pipes the sewer will back up into their basement and the city wont pay for repairs. We’re bigger and less dense.
One could argue that you also have your shit more together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
