If taxes were voluntary, I wouldn't pay for anything. Not necessarily because I disagree with each and every one of the programs our government has, but because I believe that so many other people wouldn't contribute that the programs would be too underfunded to be of any use regardless of my contribution. Basically a prisoner's dilemma.
I would operate under the assumption that it's every man for himself (financially). This would mean not only not paying taxes, but I'd also cut back on donations to charity and spending on entertainment, because in such a society you could not count on a social safety net for potentially bad things happening in the future like unemployment, losing a chunk of your retirement funds in a stock market crash, etc -- you'd need to hold onto your resources for yourself.
Two exceptions: * national defense, only if it was guaranteed to be used strictly for defense rather than the mostly aggressive purposes that it has been (ie, probably not) * if I became rich enough that I had already secured myself for life/retirement, then I'd view the excess money as resources for possible philanthropy
On February 02 2011 16:13 BenBuford wrote: Exchanging "Social Security" with "road maintenance" in the following bit:
No, I absolutely would not. All the projections show social ROAD MAINTENANCE going bankrupt, and TRAFFIC LIGHT MAINTENANCE spiraling out of control to the point where it consumes 30% of gdp. They are unsustainable and failing programs. I can take care of my own TRAFFIC PLANNING and I have a fundamental right to do so. The sheer audacity of someone taking my wealth from me, saying they're going to manage it for me because I'm just too fucking stupid to do it myself, and that I will rot in prison if I don't allow it to happen, just sickens me to the core. Some people do not save for ASPHALT, thats true, and they will pay the price for their ineptitude. But the fact of the matter is they have a RIGHT to manage their own affairs, and to the product of their labor. It comes down to humility. I cannot tell someone I know whats best for them, because I acknowledge that I don't know many things.
There, I fixed it.
Just try to grasp, that Social Security can be part of the government administration just like the maintenance of roads, public buildings, fire departments, police, armies etc. The goverment taking care of their citizens, works great in so many countries. I guess it's just conservative thinking leaving americans behind in this matter, in the western world.
This is why I don't think Europeans should even be allowed to debate American issues on these forums. Your ignorance is truly astounding, and your bias appalling. You know nothing about social security stop taking jabs at the American right for your own gratification.
Yeah, maybe we should open a separate thread for american stuff here and refrein from discussing it in threads that clearly were not meant to be about USA vs Europe. I don't even want to look who started the US-discussion in here but lets do that somewhere else, please?
With regards to the OP, I had to think of the life cycle model by Modigliani and Brumberg. According to this model it is rational to finance early life via debt (school loans etc.), save money when you have an income of your own and eat up these saving when you are retired. The aim is to maintain a stable level of consumption. Looks kinda like this:
The problem is that we are not rational, that is, we will - on average - not save enough to cover the expenses because of certain ways humans work: - failure to delay gratification (i.e. you want all the fun now and give a shit about later times) - overcondifence (you think nothing bad is gonna happen, really)
Empirically speaking, people have a tendency to underinsure themselves which is why it is sensible to make certain savings mandatory. The alternative, of course, would be a lot of elderly poor people which leaves two options: let them suffer because it was their own fault or care for them which results in costs for the community (that have to be accounted for by taxes).
Acton is rational by definition. Action is an implication of preference, hence implies actor prefering the course taken to all other possible choices. The likely objection to this is an appeal to objective value or behaviorism, both of which are fallacies.
That is only true if the actor is even aware of all other possible choices and if he is able to grasp consequences of those choices. If not, you can still cling to your statement, but then your definition becomes useless and simplistic. Action is assured to be rational only if the actor is rational, otherwise word rational loses its meaning.
What DOES rational action mean to you? If it means the most suitable behavior for the achievement of preferred ends, then it is the same definition as action itself.
On February 02 2011 16:13 BenBuford wrote: Exchanging "Social Security" with "road maintenance" in the following bit:
No, I absolutely would not. All the projections show social ROAD MAINTENANCE going bankrupt, and TRAFFIC LIGHT MAINTENANCE spiraling out of control to the point where it consumes 30% of gdp. They are unsustainable and failing programs. I can take care of my own TRAFFIC PLANNING and I have a fundamental right to do so. The sheer audacity of someone taking my wealth from me, saying they're going to manage it for me because I'm just too fucking stupid to do it myself, and that I will rot in prison if I don't allow it to happen, just sickens me to the core. Some people do not save for ASPHALT, thats true, and they will pay the price for their ineptitude. But the fact of the matter is they have a RIGHT to manage their own affairs, and to the product of their labor. It comes down to humility. I cannot tell someone I know whats best for them, because I acknowledge that I don't know many things.
There, I fixed it.
Just try to grasp, that Social Security can be part of the government administration just like the maintenance of roads, public buildings, fire departments, police, armies etc. The goverment taking care of their citizens, works great in so many countries. I guess it's just conservative thinking leaving americans behind in this matter, in the western world.
This is why I don't think Europeans should even be allowed to debate American issues on these forums. Your ignorance is truly astounding, and your bias appalling. You know nothing about social security stop taking jabs at the American right for your own gratification.
Yeah, maybe we should open a separate thread for american stuff here and refrein from discussing it in threads that clearly were not meant to be about USA vs Europe. I don't even want to look who started the US-discussion in here but lets do that somewhere else, please?
With regards to the OP, I had to think of the life cycle model by Modigliani and Brumberg. According to this model it is rational to finance early life via debt (school loans etc.), save money when you have an income of your own and eat up these saving when you are retired. The aim is to maintain a stable level of consumption. Looks kinda like this:
The problem is that we are not rational, that is, we will - on average - not save enough to cover the expenses because of certain ways humans work: - failure to delay gratification (i.e. you want all the fun now and give a shit about later times) - overcondifence (you think nothing bad is gonna happen, really)
Empirically speaking, people have a tendency to underinsure themselves which is why it is sensible to make certain savings mandatory. The alternative, of course, would be a lot of elderly poor people which leaves two options: let them suffer because it was their own fault or care for them which results in costs for the community (that have to be accounted for by taxes).
Acton is rational by definition. Action is an implication of preference, hence implies actor prefering the course taken to all other possible choices. The likely objection to this is an appeal to objective value or behaviorism, both of which are fallacies.
Not sure what you are trying to say? I think that "action is rational by definition" is bullshit. There is well-documented evidence of people acting against their own preferences. If you want to make the point that people do not act according to normative models of rationality such as homo economicus, then I agree, but that is basically what I was pointing out in my previous post.
Observed action is just that, demonstrated preference. Therefore any claims of action counter to preference are meaningless, absurd statements.
Please check the dictionary for definition of action and rational. Anyway rational action in the context we have here, means acting to achieve your goals in the most efficient way. If my goal is to be healthy, keeping fit and eating well are rational actions. Eating infested flies because my religion tells me to is not. Your definition of rational is tautological and useless. And by using it you skip a lot of complexity that is in actual human psyche , because it inconveniences your ideology.
On February 02 2011 16:13 BenBuford wrote: Exchanging "Social Security" with "road maintenance" in the following bit:
No, I absolutely would not. All the projections show social ROAD MAINTENANCE going bankrupt, and TRAFFIC LIGHT MAINTENANCE spiraling out of control to the point where it consumes 30% of gdp. They are unsustainable and failing programs. I can take care of my own TRAFFIC PLANNING and I have a fundamental right to do so. The sheer audacity of someone taking my wealth from me, saying they're going to manage it for me because I'm just too fucking stupid to do it myself, and that I will rot in prison if I don't allow it to happen, just sickens me to the core. Some people do not save for ASPHALT, thats true, and they will pay the price for their ineptitude. But the fact of the matter is they have a RIGHT to manage their own affairs, and to the product of their labor. It comes down to humility. I cannot tell someone I know whats best for them, because I acknowledge that I don't know many things.
There, I fixed it.
Just try to grasp, that Social Security can be part of the government administration just like the maintenance of roads, public buildings, fire departments, police, armies etc. The goverment taking care of their citizens, works great in so many countries. I guess it's just conservative thinking leaving americans behind in this matter, in the western world.
This is why I don't think Europeans should even be allowed to debate American issues on these forums. Your ignorance is truly astounding, and your bias appalling. You know nothing about social security stop taking jabs at the American right for your own gratification.
Yeah, maybe we should open a separate thread for american stuff here and refrein from discussing it in threads that clearly were not meant to be about USA vs Europe. I don't even want to look who started the US-discussion in here but lets do that somewhere else, please?
With regards to the OP, I had to think of the life cycle model by Modigliani and Brumberg. According to this model it is rational to finance early life via debt (school loans etc.), save money when you have an income of your own and eat up these saving when you are retired. The aim is to maintain a stable level of consumption. Looks kinda like this:
The problem is that we are not rational, that is, we will - on average - not save enough to cover the expenses because of certain ways humans work: - failure to delay gratification (i.e. you want all the fun now and give a shit about later times) - overcondifence (you think nothing bad is gonna happen, really)
Empirically speaking, people have a tendency to underinsure themselves which is why it is sensible to make certain savings mandatory. The alternative, of course, would be a lot of elderly poor people which leaves two options: let them suffer because it was their own fault or care for them which results in costs for the community (that have to be accounted for by taxes).
Acton is rational by definition. Action is an implication of preference, hence implies actor prefering the course taken to all other possible choices. The likely objection to this is an appeal to objective value or behaviorism, both of which are fallacies.
You want irrational action? How about the 10000 people who stayed behind in New Orleans after being told they would likely die if they didn't leave because the town was going to be flooded. What's the rational basis for that?
The fact is, even though people aren't always rational actors, irrational decisions are inherently unpredictable. No system should be built around irrational choice, it just has to reward rational choice, punish irrational choice, and be immune to irrational tampering.
They preferred the perceived implications of staying there to the opportunity cost, hence the action was in accordance to their preferences.
As elaborated by Mises:
Human action is necessarily always rational. The term “rational action” is therefore pleonastic and must be rejected as such. When applied to the ultimate ends of action, the terms rational and irrational are inappropriate and meaning- less. The ultimate end of action is always the satisfaction of some desires of the acting man. Since nobody is in a position to substitute his own value judgments for those of the acting individual, it is vain to pass judgment on other people’s aims and volitions. No man is qualified to declare what would make another man happier or less discontented. The critic either tells us what he believes he would aim at if he were in the place of his fellow; or, in dictatorial arrogance blithely disposing of his fellow’s will and aspirations, declares what condition of this other man would better suit himself, the critic.
When applied to the means chosen for the attainment of ends, the terms rational and irrational imply a judgment about the expediency and adequacy of the procedure employed. The critic approves or disapproves of the method from the point of view of whether or not it is best suited to attain the end in question. It is a fact that human reason is not infallible and that man very often errs in selecting and applying means. An action unsuited to the end sought falls short of expectation. It is contrary to purpose, but it is rational, i.e., the outcome of a reasonable—although faulty—deliberation and an attempt—although an ineffectual attempt—to attain a definite goal. The doctors who a hundred years ago employed certain methods for the treatment of cancer which our contemporary doctors reject were—from the point of view of present-day pathology—badly instructed and therefore inefficient. But they did not act irrationally; they did their best. It is probable that in a hundred years more doctors will have more efficient methods at hand for the treatment of this disease. They will be more efficient but not more rational than our physicians.
Ok this explains it a little better. This does not change the fact that he is redefining rational and simplifying things too much. Not even talking about actions that are undertaken without any goal.
Yeah I'm a troll like galileo was a troll, it's what happens when you go against the established lies and ignorance.
The difference between Galileo and you is the proof, not the conjecture.
Then dispute what I have said. Where do US dollars come from?
You are making too much fuss, so here : they are (as all other currencies in the world) printed/minted. So now that we have this trivial question answered was there a point ?
printed hm? do you know the worth printed money? exactly the amount of production. even the most money is not printed at all, just numbers in a computer. thats close to zero of worth.
this close to zero real worth money is lent by a private organisation to states. to banks. with the full worth it was printed on or typed in. it gets even funnier. all this money comes with full interest. like you produce a paper, write a number on it, give it to someone, and because he uses it, you already want something back. all countrys who run a debt based money system are in debt just because they use the money. thats all. if they would have a backed up money system produced by a states bank, they would not even be in debt at all. if this is not crazy...
My reply had different goal then to actually state my opinion on current state of world currencies, see my reply above. As for your post, this is not news to probably anyone in the general sense. Unlike you I think that money still is worth reasonably close to what value people assign to it(to restate, I think there still is not too big of a bubble). And I am not talking about those creative ways you describe that bank use to "create" money, those are often worthless. But in general sense all big world currencies are still reasonably trustworthy for the time being. Also I have no idea how state banks prevent debt accumulation. Most European countries have central banks unlike US who has bunch of private bankers and they are still in debt. Yes central bank seems much better solution, than US model, by mostly not being so easily manipulated and bought, but in the end they still have to listen at least somewhat to the politicians and are still human.
you are a payed agent or a vigilant kid.
considering money worth you did not read my post. money actually has no real worth. the only, reason to keep it short, money has worth is because we use it. funny thing just because of that countrys use a certain money, they have to pay back interest, money produced out of nothing the only reason is because they use it. debt based money, as it calls, produces debt, if the states would produce their own currency, they would be debt free.
also because you did not address my posts, you did not realize us and europe have private banks gathering the money. there is no, absolutely no difference.
pps.: nice try to construct so much paradoch information in one post. confuse me? sorry no.
you: And I am not talking about those creative ways you describe that bank use to "create" money, those are often worthless. But in general sense all big world currencies are still reasonably trustworthy for the time being. me: hahaha. but no. i did not ever said that. no creativity at all. the money creation happens: just blunt out, type into computer a number, write a number on paper, both not worth anything, going into accepted currency, just because these private organisations can. and they want something back only because states use it as currency and you are forced too. it is called debt money system. the one who uses it, is in debt. basically. to someone who did not more than just printed some numbers on paper or hacked a number into a pc.
i dont gonna quote your utter shit, because i already answered in this thread. about european countries have central banks and how this doesnt work better and still have to listen to politicians...
you are a straight out joke. european central bank in fact is private. politicians have no influence, at all.
CONSIDER: there maybe people, payed to confuse you on public forums. about serious matters. this is called greenspeech, or fedspeech. or i dunno just maybe my self esteem is really low and i dont want to head on. sorry. dont wanna discuss on that matter. maybe i just should leave this thread for now. since i maybe got distracted. you decide. also there maybe people who just have no idea. at all.
Your text is nearly incomprehensible, please learn to write. It is so full of nonsense and conspiracy that it is nearly funny.
On February 03 2011 00:32 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Those legal structures and institutionalized guidelines are there to limit the authority of those in power, and would be done away with by them as soon as it was politically expedient. They don't increase the effectiveness of government, they keep it from eating the people alive. You're confusing an insane asylum constructed to contain a bunch of bloodthirsty maniacs with a complex machine.
Hm, now you lost me. The strcutires I talk about are not primarily there to limit government. Consider the law that forbids assault. This is an institutionalized norm which is part of a state under the rule of law. It is not meant to limit government but to enforce abstinence from violence in order to protect weaker members of society from stronger ones.
Also, slave owners used to justify their actions by saying black people we're too stupid to take care of themselves, and that slavery was the only option for them. They didn't have to think in the slightest, everything was provided for them.
Hm, your point is that the maximally negative potential aspect of a system is the sole criterion to judge its worth? Another rethorical trick. This is equivalent to me stating that the absence of government equal man brutally oppressing and slaughtering his fellow neighbours while intentionally neglecting the potential benefits.
I may be incredibly stupid, and I may cause myself great suffering and even death because of my ineptitude. You may be completely and utterly superior to me and capable of determining what is best for me. But my dignity and freedom is more important to me. So keep your dirty molesting thieving hands off me.
Interesting point. How about a child that wants sweets for dinner instead of a healthy diet? ow about senile or mentally handicapped people? How about pedophiles and rapists? Would you not agree that certain people must be restrained from doing living out their actual preferences? Where do you draw the line? You simply cannot argue in absolutes here.
I think the answer is neither to place all powerin the hands of governments which I would never supportif you read as you can see from my previous post supporting the concept of "nudge". But the absence of all government and "everyone for himself"-mentality is equally not an option.
A law against assault isn't part of "legal structures or institutionalized guidelines". We're talking about how government is setup and how it runs. It may not be like this in your country, but in the U.S., those are very much there to limit the power and authority of the government.
"It is not meant to limit government but to enforce abstinence from violence in order to protect weaker members of society from stronger ones." Actually its meant to protect the rights of all members of society. Your superiority complex continues to shine through. You have a world view consisting of a superior class of human beings, that includes yourself, and the pathetic rabble they oversee.
"Hm, your point is that the maximally negative potential aspect of a system is the sole criterion to judge its worth?" I was talking about you actually, not the system. And you're already at the maximally negative so its a perfect criterion to judge your worth.
"Interesting point. How about a child that wants sweets for dinner instead of a healthy diet?" Thats a family matter, between the child and the parent. You'd no doubt have some sort of inspector come in to determine whether the parent is raising the child correctly.
"How about pedophiles and rapists?" You are severely confused. We're discussing the management of people's lives, who are harming no one. Molester's and rapists are violating another's rights. Arresting them is to protect the rights of the individual they harmed. They're not arrested for their own good.
"But the absence of all government and "everyone for himself"-mentality is equally not an option." You presume much about others. What they believe, and how utterly inferior they are. Where did I say that i'm an anarchist?
You continue to amaze me. I will give you the favor of the doubt and ignore your insults. Here is one fact that you simply cannot deny: not everyone is equal! Some people are better fit to make sound decision than others. The question is how to deal with that situation. Your solution is to let everyone struggle for themselves and let those who make poor decision suffer. And if it turns out bad, they have no right to comlain, heck they should be glad that they have so much freedom. My approach is that those who are better decision makers have a responsibility for those who are worde decision makers.
Of course you can demonize my view as you did but I would like to point out that it is purely a matter of view which of us is the "bad guy".
On February 02 2011 05:19 Offhand wrote: The average adult American is 8 grand in debt. Consider that before making the call as to whether or not they're capable of saving for their future.
This isn't a valid point when we have the government running a debt based currency.
If people actually started saving overnight, our current economy would fall apart, and would have to be rebuilt. Because it is completely based on sustainability through debt. That is why the dollar is currently ~ -13 trillion. Business that only sell useless luxury items would disappear left and right, jobs would be lost, and entire new and different business would have to be created.
We have the government running a debt based currency.
We have the government teaching people through high school, why are they teaching people to be financially responsible??
Because it isn't desirable for them, they want the debt.
So we continue to let them run the debt scheme, and we continue to let them teach generation after generation.
And then we blame individuals because they are "not capable" of saving? There is no rationality behind this.
The government has created all these problems, which what government always does. Creates a problem, offers a solution, and becomes a little more powerful when they enact that solution.
Then eventually you have a whole population of people who are desperately dependent on the government to survive, and the government has little fear of being usurped.
I can't believe so many people don't understand this.
Seriously like every single post i have read from you sounds like a troll post.
and now i jump in saying the federal reserve is a privat organisation. not the government, thats just a vehicle, not the driver. choose: invest in investigation or fast judge!
also there was this funny documentation freedom to something by aron ruso about the income tax system. so sad we do not have that much of an straight out fraud here :/
Yes, private bankers create US dollars, loan it out, and are paid it back plus interest. These bankers are known as the Federal Reserve.
Its their power and control over the flow of money, that they certainly wouldn't have with a gold standard, is the reason we haven't crashed head-first into multiple Great-Depression-esque recessions over the last 60 years.
I don't see how any of it applies to socialized systems, and how they would have a hope in hell of survival if they create themselves a very poor, very pissed off, armed and loaded population of millions.
This is just so full of ignorance it is astounding. First of all, you might want to hold your breath as worldwide economies continue to plummet. Second of all, the US has used fiat currency since 1913, in case you are bad at math, that is well more than 60 years ago. Both depressions occurred under the economic management of the Federal Reserve.
You don't see how this applies to socialized systems because you have no idea what you are talking about, or how the US economy functions, or how these socialized systems are paid for. The 13 trillion dollar deficit that our government has to pay for it's gargantuan spending is only made possible by the fiat currency provided by the federal reserve. Without that, instead of having a 13 trillion dollar deficit, we would have an additional 13 trillion dollars worth of taxes, and likely the people would have rebelled a long time ago. Fiat currency allows the government to spend money nearly endlessly, and the true tax burden is not felt until decades later. Only it is felt by an ignorant populace with no long term outlook, educated by the government schools, with no understanding of economics or how the US dollar is created and how the government programs are paid for.
On February 03 2011 13:41 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote: CONSIDER: there maybe people, payed to confuse you on public forums. about serious matters. this is called greenspeech, or fedspeech. or i dunno just maybe my self esteem is really low and i dont want to head on. sorry. dont wanna discuss on that matter. maybe i just should leave this thread for now. since i maybe got distracted. you decide. also there maybe people who just have no idea. at all.
cointelpro?
I truly do not understand the ignorance of people who want to act like they are experts on the economy and government spending, etc. when they have no freaking clue where dollars even come from and for who's benefit. I can understand their position because I have been there, though I also gladly accepting the truth with it was revealed to me. It is almost like they are in denial, like somewhere in the subconscious they already know they are getting raped, and they do not want anyone to point this out to them, they don't want to admit it, and they will fight the truth at all costs. Stockholm syndrom?
As miserable as it is though, I still would prefer to not live in plato's cave.
"Hostages who develop Stockholm syndrome often view the perpetrator as giving life by simply not taking it. In this sense, the captor becomes the person in control of the captive’s basic needs for survival and the victim’s life itself." AKA all good structures of society come from government
On February 02 2011 10:56 mcc wrote: not even be in debt at all. if this is not crazy...
My reply had different goal then to actually state my opinion on current state of world currencies, see my reply above. As for your post, this is not news to probably anyone in the general sense. Unlike you I think that money still is worth reasonably close to what value people assign to it(to restate, I think there still is not too big of a bubble). And I am not talking about those creative ways you describe that bank use to "create" money, those are often worthless. But in general sense all big world currencies are still reasonably trustworthy for the time being. Also I have no idea how state banks prevent debt accumulation. Most European countries have central banks unlike US who has bunch of private bankers and they are still in debt. Yes central bank seems much better solution, than US model, by mostly not being so easily manipulated and bought, but in the end they still have to listen at least somewhat to the politicians and are still human.
you are a payed agent or a vigilant kid.
considering money worth you did not read my post. money actually has no real worth. the only, reason to keep it short, money has worth is because we use it. funny thing just because of that countrys use a certain money, they have to pay back interest, money produced out of nothing the only reason is because they use it. debt based money, as it calls, produces debt, if the states would produce their own currency, they would be debt free.
also because you did not address my posts, you did not realize us and europe have private banks gathering the money. there is no, absolutely no difference.
pps.: nice try to construct so much paradoch information in one post. confuse me? sorry no.
you: And I am not talking about those creative ways you describe that bank use to "create" money, those are often worthless. But in general sense all big world currencies are still reasonably trustworthy for the time being. me: hahaha. but no. i did not ever said that. no creativity at all. the money creation happens: just blunt out, type into computer a number, write a number on paper, both not worth anything, going into accepted currency, just because these private organisations can. and they want something back only because states use it as currency and you are forced too. it is called debt money system. the one who uses it, is in debt. basically. to someone who did not more than just printed some numbers on paper or hacked a number into a pc.
i dont gonna quote your utter shit, because i already answered in this thread. about european countries have central banks and how this doesnt work better and still have to listen to politicians...
you are a straight out joke. european central bank in fact is private. politicians have no influence, at all.
CONSIDER: there maybe people, payed to confuse you on public forums. about serious matters. this is called greenspeech, or fedspeech. or i dunno just maybe my self esteem is really low and i dont want to head on. sorry. dont wanna discuss on that matter. maybe i just should leave this thread for now. since i maybe got distracted. you decide. also there maybe people who just have no idea. at all.[/QUOTE] I've talked to people IRL who are payed to confused on public forums/spread things/and at events, too ( it's for advertising random products, but they do exist. ) There was one kid who was payed to talk about HT ( hyperthreading )...
Though this thread has completely derailed into hostile discussion about the reason currency is used and the printing of money (what...?), I really only have 2 words to conclude what would happen if taxes were voluntary. Free riding. This would not be sustainable and would likely fall under after a period of time - except for some programs that would act as a form of insurance and not cover them otherwise (aka some public goods - maybe). Maybe.
On February 04 2011 01:38 Comeh wrote: Though this thread has completely derailed into hostile discussion about the reason currency is used and the printing of money (what...?), I really only have 2 words to conclude what would happen if taxes were voluntary. Free riding. This would not be sustainable and would likely fall under after a period of time - except for some programs that would act as a form of insurance and not cover them otherwise (aka some public goods - maybe). Maybe.
The very essence of taxes allows free riding, people just don't care because it's someone more well off than them paying the unfair share. If you had no government (no taxes, voluntary taxes is really an oxymoron) you could have a system where people pay "taxes" for the services they use, and there would be much less free riding. Yeah there would still be the guy that knows how to activate and steal cable, but it would be much lower than how many freeloaders there are with socialized systems.
On February 02 2011 05:19 Offhand wrote: The average adult American is 8 grand in debt. Consider that before making the call as to whether or not they're capable of saving for their future.
This isn't a valid point when we have the government running a debt based currency.
If people actually started saving overnight, our current economy would fall apart, and would have to be rebuilt. Because it is completely based on sustainability through debt. That is why the dollar is currently ~ -13 trillion. Business that only sell useless luxury items would disappear left and right, jobs would be lost, and entire new and different business would have to be created.
We have the government running a debt based currency.
We have the government teaching people through high school, why are they teaching people to be financially responsible??
Because it isn't desirable for them, they want the debt.
So we continue to let them run the debt scheme, and we continue to let them teach generation after generation.
And then we blame individuals because they are "not capable" of saving? There is no rationality behind this.
The government has created all these problems, which what government always does. Creates a problem, offers a solution, and becomes a little more powerful when they enact that solution.
Then eventually you have a whole population of people who are desperately dependent on the government to survive, and the government has little fear of being usurped.
I can't believe so many people don't understand this.
Seriously like every single post i have read from you sounds like a troll post.
and now i jump in saying the federal reserve is a privat organisation. not the government, thats just a vehicle, not the driver. choose: invest in investigation or fast judge!
also there was this funny documentation freedom to something by aron ruso about the income tax system. so sad we do not have that much of an straight out fraud here :/
Yes, private bankers create US dollars, loan it out, and are paid it back plus interest. These bankers are known as the Federal Reserve.
Its their power and control over the flow of money, that they certainly wouldn't have with a gold standard, is the reason we haven't crashed head-first into multiple Great-Depression-esque recessions over the last 60 years.
I don't see how any of it applies to socialized systems, and how they would have a hope in hell of survival if they create themselves a very poor, very pissed off, armed and loaded population of millions.
This is just so full of ignorance it is astounding. First of all, you might want to hold your breath as worldwide economies continue to plummet. Second of all, the US has used fiat currency since 1913, in case you are bad at math, that is well more than 60 years ago. Both depressions occurred under the economic management of the Federal Reserve.
You don't see how this applies to socialized systems because you have no idea what you are talking about, or how the US economy functions, or how these socialized systems are paid for. The 13 trillion dollar deficit that our government has to pay for it's gargantuan spending is only made possible by the fiat currency provided by the federal reserve. Without that, instead of having a 13 trillion dollar deficit, we would have an additional 13 trillion dollars worth of taxes, and likely the people would have rebelled a long time ago. Fiat currency allows the government to spend money nearly endlessly, and the true tax burden is not felt until decades later. Only it is felt by an ignorant populace with no long term outlook, educated by the government schools, with no understanding of economics or how the US dollar is created and how the government programs are paid for.
Yes, yes, you've taken one class in Economics, realized that there is no tangible product behind the dollar bill, that its all based on faith, and want to tout around your vaunted education to the 'masses'. Good show.
On February 02 2011 05:19 Offhand wrote: The average adult American is 8 grand in debt. Consider that before making the call as to whether or not they're capable of saving for their future.
This isn't a valid point when we have the government running a debt based currency.
If people actually started saving overnight, our current economy would fall apart, and would have to be rebuilt. Because it is completely based on sustainability through debt. That is why the dollar is currently ~ -13 trillion. Business that only sell useless luxury items would disappear left and right, jobs would be lost, and entire new and different business would have to be created.
We have the government running a debt based currency.
We have the government teaching people through high school, why are they teaching people to be financially responsible??
Because it isn't desirable for them, they want the debt.
So we continue to let them run the debt scheme, and we continue to let them teach generation after generation.
And then we blame individuals because they are "not capable" of saving? There is no rationality behind this.
The government has created all these problems, which what government always does. Creates a problem, offers a solution, and becomes a little more powerful when they enact that solution.
Then eventually you have a whole population of people who are desperately dependent on the government to survive, and the government has little fear of being usurped.
I can't believe so many people don't understand this.
Seriously like every single post i have read from you sounds like a troll post.
and now i jump in saying the federal reserve is a privat organisation. not the government, thats just a vehicle, not the driver. choose: invest in investigation or fast judge!
also there was this funny documentation freedom to something by aron ruso about the income tax system. so sad we do not have that much of an straight out fraud here :/
Yes, private bankers create US dollars, loan it out, and are paid it back plus interest. These bankers are known as the Federal Reserve.
Its their power and control over the flow of money, that they certainly wouldn't have with a gold standard, is the reason we haven't crashed head-first into multiple Great-Depression-esque recessions over the last 60 years.
I don't see how any of it applies to socialized systems, and how they would have a hope in hell of survival if they create themselves a very poor, very pissed off, armed and loaded population of millions.
This is just so full of ignorance it is astounding. First of all, you might want to hold your breath as worldwide economies continue to plummet. Second of all, the US has used fiat currency since 1913, in case you are bad at math, that is well more than 60 years ago. Both depressions occurred under the economic management of the Federal Reserve.
You don't see how this applies to socialized systems because you have no idea what you are talking about, or how the US economy functions, or how these socialized systems are paid for. The 13 trillion dollar deficit that our government has to pay for it's gargantuan spending is only made possible by the fiat currency provided by the federal reserve. Without that, instead of having a 13 trillion dollar deficit, we would have an additional 13 trillion dollars worth of taxes, and likely the people would have rebelled a long time ago. Fiat currency allows the government to spend money nearly endlessly, and the true tax burden is not felt until decades later. Only it is felt by an ignorant populace with no long term outlook, educated by the government schools, with no understanding of economics or how the US dollar is created and how the government programs are paid for.
Yes, yes, you've taken one class in Economics, realized that there is no tangible product behind the dollar bill, that its all based on faith, and want to tout around your vaunted education to the 'masses'. Good show.
I haven't taken a class on econ since high school and it was garbage, I just like to read.
I like to read, too. Except I like to read things that use reason and logic, rather than authors that make baseless claims and use wild accusatory language that tries to convince me its all just one big conspiracy.
I'd believe a lot of conspiracy theories myself if 99.99% of them couldn't be attributed to human stupidity.
Part of why taxes are so contentious, particularly in the USA, is because people assume that taxes paid is money wasted. Much of this is rooted in a fundamental distrust of legislators and legislative bodies. Though legislators are elected officials, the general sentiment is that they are self-interested and prone to influence from wealthy lobbyists. This feeling is only compounded by the concept of legislative tenure, where a new congressman has to wait until he has some clout before he can start hauling in government spending for his constituency.
Imagine, then, if we removed some of the task of allocating spending from legislators and gave it back to individuals. We now have the technology to allow the general population to make these kinds of decisions on a large scale, particularly because turnout is likely to be proportional to voter turnout for general elections. How much more willing would you be to pay tax if you could see to it that the projects you cared about were funded directly. I'd love to funnel my tax check into NASA and the University of California system. Instead lots of it goes to pay inflated pensions to public workers.
In a society that works properly, taxes should feel like a willing contribution, not a mandatory burden.
On February 04 2011 02:27 Bibdy wrote: I like to read, too. Except I like to read things that use reason and logic, rather than authors that make baseless claims and use wild accusatory language that tries to convince me its all just one big conspiracy.
I'd believe a lot of conspiracy theories myself if 99.99% of them couldn't be attributed to human stupidity.
This is a completely empty claim, what is it you are trying to discredit?
On February 04 2011 02:27 Bibdy wrote: I like to read, too. Except I like to read things that use reason and logic, rather than authors that make baseless claims and use wild accusatory language that tries to convince me its all just one big conspiracy.
I'd believe a lot of conspiracy theories myself if 99.99% of them couldn't be attributed to human stupidity.
This is a completely empty claim, what is it you are trying to discredit?
You and the nonsensical conspiracy theorist rhetoric you've been babbling about since you started posting in this thread.
On February 04 2011 02:27 Bibdy wrote: I like to read, too. Except I like to read things that use reason and logic, rather than authors that make baseless claims and use wild accusatory language that tries to convince me its all just one big conspiracy.
I'd believe a lot of conspiracy theories myself if 99.99% of them couldn't be attributed to human stupidity.
This is a completely empty claim, what is it you are trying to discredit?
You and the nonsensical conspiracy theorist rhetoric you've been babbling about since you started posting in this thread.
On February 04 2011 02:30 cydereal wrote: Part of why taxes are so contentious, particularly in the USA, is because people assume that taxes paid is money wasted. Much of this is rooted in a fundamental distrust of legislators and legislative bodies. Though legislators are elected officials, the general sentiment is that they are self-interested and prone to influence from wealthy lobbyists. This feeling is only compounded by the concept of legislative tenure, where a new congressman has to wait until he has some clout before he can start hauling in government spending for his constituency.
Imagine, then, if we removed some of the task of allocating spending from legislators and gave it back to individuals. We now have the technology to allow the general population to make these kinds of decisions on a large scale, particularly because turnout is likely to be proportional to voter turnout for general elections. How much more willing would you be to pay tax if you could see to it that the projects you cared about were funded directly. I'd love to funnel my tax check into NASA and the University of California system. Instead lots of it goes to pay inflated pensions to public workers.
In a society that works properly, taxes should feel like a willing contribution, not a mandatory burden.
I completely agree. Basic psychology tells us that the motivation to do something is a product of a few core variables. One of these is instrumentality, the question how strongly your effort relates to a desired outcome. This is necessarily low to non-existant in curren tax-systems. I think it would be way cooler if you could see what is done with your specific tax money. Lets say that, at the end of the year you could see that your tax money saved the life of a sick child or went into a new bridge? You know, make it tangible somehow to give people a stronger feedback what useful purpose their money served. I know ths idea has its flaws but it may be a start.
Firstly, asking teenagers who can afford the leisure of sc2 if they want to pay taxes is a bit unfair. I believe that, while social security and medicare are extremely inefficient, we should still pay taxes. It's easy to look at a bum on the street and think "get a job, stop being lazy". Maybe he has diabetes and can't afford dialysis because medicaid fails.
Bottom line is, I'd rather let myself get ripped off than watch the unfortunate suffer. I'm sure $60 was a complete rip-off for a video game, but we pay because we want the game. Unless you want others to suffer, accept taxes for what they are and pay up.
Also the ad-hominems here are pretty funny. Pretty much verbatim from the textbook examples.
On February 04 2011 02:30 cydereal wrote: Part of why taxes are so contentious, particularly in the USA, is because people assume that taxes paid is money wasted. Much of this is rooted in a fundamental distrust of legislators and legislative bodies. Though legislators are elected officials, the general sentiment is that they are self-interested and prone to influence from wealthy lobbyists. This feeling is only compounded by the concept of legislative tenure, where a new congressman has to wait until he has some clout before he can start hauling in government spending for his constituency.
Imagine, then, if we removed some of the task of allocating spending from legislators and gave it back to individuals. We now have the technology to allow the general population to make these kinds of decisions on a large scale, particularly because turnout is likely to be proportional to voter turnout for general elections. How much more willing would you be to pay tax if you could see to it that the projects you cared about were funded directly. I'd love to funnel my tax check into NASA and the University of California system. Instead lots of it goes to pay inflated pensions to public workers.
In a society that works properly, taxes should feel like a willing contribution, not a mandatory burden.
I completely agree. Basic psychology tells us that the motivation to do something is a product of a few core variables. One of these is instrumentality, the question how strongly your effort relates to a desired outcome. This is necessarily low to non-existant in curren tax-systems. I think it would be way cooler if you could see what is done with your specific tax money. Lets say that, at the end of the year you could see that your tax money saved the life of a sick child or went into a new bridge? You know, make it tangible somehow to give people a stronger feedback what useful purpose their money served. I know ths idea has its flaws but it may be a start.
Which our current government would never allow, because you aren't going to get that warm fuzzy feeling when you see that your taxes paid interest to some bankers who printed money for almost nothing. It would be more feasible at the local level but becomes more and more corrupt as you get up to the federal level.
EPT![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_xwXK9DWd6Pc/TEigw5Z6UrI/AAAAAAAAAHI/rRhh8xMNBrc/s1600/Slide2.JPG)
