quote: why stay here if it doesn't help you at all?
I totally agree with you. As far as I know, the USA is my best option. If I knew of an english speaking country where I could live freer from government, say australia, canada, new zeeland, etc, I would go there. But such places do not offer any additional freedoms above and beyond those I currently enjoy here.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rob, if you spent a few minutes considering it, I'm sure you could think of more benefits to income tax than just "waging war".
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You yourself just said you enjoy many freedoms in the states. How do you think those freedoms are enforced? Who pays for it?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I knew of an english speaking country where I could live freer from government, say australia, canada, new zeeland, etc, I would go there. But such places do not offer any additional freedoms above and beyond those I currently enjoy here.
Surely learning another language is no real deterrent, if you are serious. Or you could go to a little-populated region and fight it out locally, right? Some place that has little effective federal government but is run by, say, local militias?
posted
I'd love to know why you think those tax dollars were ever yours. So much so that I've asked the question more than once already.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back to the original question, not that I'm not enjoying this tangent.
quote:However, my firm belief is that government funding should not acknolwedge the race of the recipients. If the government is trying to help people who have "have not had as much opportunity academically, and thus merit more assistance," they should establish criteria that really determine if the applicant has had less opportunity than most.
This quote by Dagonee was sort of lost in the shuffle but I think it's an important point. There is no reason why a private organization can't set up whatever requirements it sees fit for a scholarship. My children will get a scholarship because their grandfather was a helicopter pilot in Vietnam. That's it - there's no essay, there's no anything, all they have to do is show they are the child or grandchild of a member of the VHPA (Vietnam Helicopters Pilots Assn.) and they get $1000 scholarship.
The government, however, isn't a private organization. The money it spends comes from taxpayers, and is it fair to tax tax dollars and use it in a racially discrimnatory way?
I don't think so. If the government wants to offer scholaships to students that didn't have access to a good education or a good learning opportunity, then it should offer those scholarships to anyone who qualifies, without race as a qualifying factor. Base it on need, and I have no problem with it. Base it on skin color, and I do.
For example, should you have a scholarship that a black kid raised by an upper middle class family in a good neighborhood with an excellent school qualifies for, but a kid from West Virginia in an impoverished neighborhood where school was a lot less important that where his next meal came from doesn't qualify?
You're essentially saying "You don't qualify for benefits, son, because you're white and you have a lot more opportunity in this country than this black kid does."
In this case it's completely opposite, the white kid needs the help, the black kid doesn't. So, if my tax dollars are going to help poor kids get an education, I want to know that those tax dollars are being spent to help kids that need help, be they white, black, latino, asian, whatever.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I just want to say that I really appreciate the fact that Rob answers questions politely and without snarkism. At least as far as I can tell. I know it's something that I fail to do myself quite frequently.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Why do you think there isn't an opportunity to change the system in Suriname? (It is a constitutional democracy.) CIA factsheet on Suriname
Really, what do you gain by staying here, in a place that functions abhorrently to you? Why bother to fight against a juggernaut (or are you an altruist)?
What if you got laid off and couldn't find work? And if you found work, it wouldn't be enough to sustain you. Starve or food stamps? Unemployment or no housing?
It's easy for us to say from a place of relative safety that we don't need these safety net services.
Then it happens to you. And it CAN.
It happened in Flint, Michigan, the once thriving city sustained by major car factories.
Then they closed.
All of them.
Evictions. Ridiculously high unemployment rate. Homelessness. Hungry kids.
Our scant system of social safety net services did barely anything to sustain them as they searched frantically for any time of employment.
It wasn't a fault in character. They worked hard every day in a factory. Then they got laid off for no fault on their part.
I wonder if, while they were securely employed, if they thought we didn't need any social services served from the state and federal government? I wonder, when they lost their jobs, if their opinions changed?
I challenge you to read Nicke and Dimed. I challenge you to watch the film Roger and Me. I challenge you to go out and face the people whom you would condemn without the scant services already supplied.
State government receives matching funds from the federal government. No federal support, budgets cut in half.
And Robespierre, if you disagree so strongly about paying income tax...why do you continue to do so?
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> You know, I just want to say that I really appreciate the fact that Rob answers questions politely and without snarkism. At least as far as I can tell. I know it's something that I fail to do myself quite frequently. << (SS)
PSI does agree to work for $10 an hour. You're saying she agrees to work for 7 - well, that's well and good but please keep in mind that her employer IS paying her $10 an hour. And that employer is paying her entire salary, deducting her taxes, and then submitting the 1/2 of her FICA requirement.
She may not see the $10 at the end of the day, but it is getting paid. The employers is paying more than $10 an hour for her labor, and if the employer also pays for benefits, then he may be paying substantially more than $10. Add in workman's compensation insurance and unemployment, and that $10 an hour increases rapidly.
So we can't pretend the $3 missing from her paycheck is no harm/no foul - someone is paying it.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, if there is some point that you are waiting to spring upon me, or are waiting for me to stumble across, please reveal it soon. How many ways do you want me to answer your question? Because I believe I have the best chance at getting what I want, here in the USA. If I had a better shot somewhere else, you better believe I would head there quickly.
Please make some suggestions of places that closely approximate Laissez-Faire democracy.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: My problem with Robes' brand of Jeffersonian democracy is that it requires an educated electorate to function at all, let alone well.
Don't let the title fool you, Jeffersonian Democracy is much more of a republic than a democracy. It does not require that its voters have perfect knowledge. It only imposes itself in the sphere of private property rights. This works whether or not the voting public understands it.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, my point is that the $3+ is not "taken" from the employee. If it were taken from the employee, it would have had to belong to the employee at some point.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Robespierre, I'm just not sure why you think it is reasonable to want the benefits of citizenship in a particular country while denying that this incurs any obligation.
You say that the federal government has no right to withhold any of your money.
I say, well, isn't it true by accessing the benefits of being under that government, you accept some obligation? Maybe we quibble about the details, but some is very different from none.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: If it were taken from the employee, it would have had to belong to the employee at some point.
I repeat the question, does an individual have ANY claim over benefits of his/her labor? If so, how much? What percent is the individual entitled to, and how did you reach that number?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> I am curious, what form of government do you advocate? <<
In a perfect world? A benign dictatorship. In an imperfect world? Social democracy.
>> I repeat the question, does an individual have ANY claim over benefits of his/her labor? If so, how much? What percent is the individual entitled to, and how did you reach that number? <<
I've already answered it, but I'll elaborate.
In my view, the benefits of the employee's labour are $7 per hour, to which the employee is entitled for having agreed to work. The company pays $10 per hour for the employee, but $10 per hour is not the value of the benefits associated with the labour – $10 per hour is $7 plus the $3+ that the government is entitled to for creating the environment in which the transaction can occur.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: You say that the federal government has no right to withhold any of your money.
I say, well, isn't it true by accessing the benefits of being under that government, you accept some obligation? Maybe we quibble about the details, but some is very different from none.
I have NOT said that the government has no right to withhold any of my money. What I have said is that the 16th amendment should be repealed, taking away the government's right to claim a share of my income. I believe the government should be funded by tariffs and excise taxes. Most government services should operate on a pay-as-you-use philosophy. How did our government function before it started collecting income taxes?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The company pays $10 per hour for the employee, but $10 per hour is not the value of the benefits associated with the labour – $10 per hour is $7 plus the $3+ that the government is entitled to for creating the environment in which the transaction can occur.
Thankyou for clarifying.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But it's okay that it's taken from the employer?
Who do you think employers are if not taxpayers?
Do you know how much it costs to run a business, to keep people on payroll? We have four part time employees. The unemployment and worker's comp alone are more than the salary of any of our employees. We could hire an additional person if we didn't have to pay them.
Everyone of our employees has health insurance. None of them have ever had a workman's comp claim. None of them have ever filed unemployment. Yet, we pay the highest rates for workman's comp and unemployment possible.
Why? Because of the business we're in. Not to mention that we paid out more than $10,000 last year to municipalities for permits and fees. Municipalities we DON'T vote in.
We also paid occupational tax in a county and a city. That's a tax on salary, we paid them taxes on what we paid our employees even though our business is not located in that county or city and we cannot and do not vote there. But if our employees worked there, say for four hours, we owed them four hours of occupational tax. The bookeeping alone is a nightmare that we have to hire a payroll service and a CPA to keep track of where everyone works and how much occupational tax we owe.
We also had to pay a usage tax on any of our equipment used in that county and city. Since we have well over $50,000 worth of equipment, that came to be a hefty amount. Again, we were only paying them because some times, during the year, our equipment went into their municipality. We don't vote there.
Two of the people working for us used to own their own businesses but gave it up because the amount of taxes and the paperwork they had to keep up with for their taxes was too much for them.
The government is slowly running small businesses into the ground. Our tax burden is immense, and our tax relief is non existent. The state gave Mercedes a $10 million dollar break on taxes so they would put their plant in our state, but a small business gets zero relief.
So, if you want to say people shouldn't rant about the taxes they pay - try looking at the other side once in a while. Somebody, somewhere, is paying for it. The business owners that employ the vast majority of people in this country are bearing a huge amount of the overall tax burden.
[/rant]
Sorry bout that, but any tax discussion gets me riled up. By the way, a few years back doctors and lawyers protested the "occupational" tax and said it was taxation without representation. The response was to exempt them from paying it on the basis that attorneys and doctors are licensed through the state, and pay a state license fee. In other words, the city and county didn't want all the physician offfices and lawyers firms moving out to another county.
When plumbers, electricians, and other tradesmen asked for the same exemption because they too are state licensed (I just renewed hubby's license and sent in the check, matter of fact) they were denied. One of the unions sued, but it was thrown out by the judge.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: In a perfect world? A benign dictatorship. In an imperfect world? Social democracy.
In my opinion, those two forms of government are the same. But playing along, what would that perfect world be?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Mack, my point had nothing at all to do with the usefulness of welfare, etc. My point was this:
quote: I may have never touched that money, but I worked for it. It goes to support my lifestyle and freedoms.
Sounds like MY money working for ME.
I was just trying to block the direction that I guessed someone might go, which was that not all things that my taxes pay for will immediately benefit me.
Please don't assume I'm against welfare, or that I think I will never need it.
I have to learn that if I argue some else's point, even in trying to refute it, someone will attempt to refute ME even though I don't hold that position at all.
And twinky, PLEASE:
quote: Then I'd say you agreed to work for 7 dollars an hour.
quote: Belle, my point is that the $3+ is not "taken" from the employee. If it were taken from the employee, it would have had to belong to the employee at some point
Using this skewed logic, Wal-Mart could deduct $200 from my paycheck for toilet paper and things I buy over the week, and say that it was never mine because it's going to Wal-Mart to pay for goods I need.
This is what happens with the government. They use a portion of my paycheck to pay for SERVICES I use. It doesn't matter if they get their cut first or last, I paid for it.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
You have made a big mistake about the relationship between government and citizen. By saying my money belongs to them, you have made me the possession, along with my work and goods I produce.
By definition, a democracy is a government owned by THE PEOPLE, therefore everything the government produces and does belongs in part to ME. So it doesn't matter if my money is in the government's hands...it's mine and will remain so.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Not to mention that the government physically makes the money itself.
Twinky, does this mean that the government has a right to all production in this country? Because the government passed a law requiring people to use the phoney-baloney currency it prints?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> You have made a big mistake about the relationship between government and citizen. By saying my money belongs to them, you have made me the possession, along with my work and goods I produce. << (PSI)
No. It's their money, you're just using it. The base salary is yours, the tax and other stuff is theirs. Basically, you are participating in the environment that they have created, and you are helping to perpetuate the existence of that environment by doing so.
>> But it's okay that it's taken from the employer? << (Belle)
The employer pays for the right to hire citizens. How is that "taking?" Now, I agree that government can go too far – particularly if it is not keeping up its end of the bargain, which is to say creating an environment in which citizens can accrue wealth.
>> In my opinion, those two forms of government are the same. But playing along, what would that perfect world be? <<
A world where the benign dictator could be trusted to always be benign and never abuse his or her power.
>> Twinky, does this mean that the government has a right to all production in this country? Because the government passed a law requiring people to use the phoney-baloney currency it prints? << (Robes)
Oh no no no. But it certainly has a right to a portion of it. What exactly that portion should be is determined by agreement between the government and the citizens; if the citizens don't like the agreement then they can vote the government out of office and elect a new one.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: But it certainly has a right to a portion of it.
Keep in mind, I am speaking soley about the USA. Before the 16th amendment, the government did NOT have the right to take any portion of an individual's income. As I stated before, I am in favor of recinding this amendment. However, there are no such amendments which cover education or social security. These are actions which our government FUNDS with income taxes, but which are not allowed it by the constitution.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Why are there different standards for employers and employees?
quote: The employer pays for the right to hire citizens.
but...
quote: No. It's their money, you're just using it.
I'm using the money to pay for things like roadways that I use, police protection, etc. They're using it to be able to hire employees. How are these situations different? It's money that belongs to a person, that they use to fund the government that they created/support.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: A world where the benign dictator could be trusted to always be benign and never abuse his or her power.
I understand that you likely didn't want me to take this seriously, but lets consider it. I find the concept of autocracy to be disgusting. I am of the opinion that individual freedom is the only moral concept to base a society on.
Obviously we start from two very different back grounds regarding the role of the state in our lives.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: No. It's their money, you're just using it.
This is true, but only because they FORCE you to use it. Take out a dollar and read the little clause on it that says:
quote: This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.
This means that if you run a business, you may not demand that customers pay in gold, or whatever else you please. You are required to use the Federal Reserve's rags. And since they have the power to print as many as they wish, to fund their rampant spending, those rags constantly drop in value. Basically, you are forced to fund the government's spending if you choose to hold cash in any form for any length of time.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> Keep in mind, I am speaking soley about the USA. <<
Ah. I'm speaking generally, given that I'm not American. Never mind, then.
>> I understand that you likely didn't want me to take this seriously, but lets consider it. I find the concept of autocracy to be disgusting. I am of the opinion that individual freedom is the only moral concept to base a society on. << (Robes)
...and I think the only functional way to create an environment that can allow individual freedom is with a strong, centralized government; ideally a perfectly benign dictator. Of course, there's no such thing, so I'm not actually an autocrat. But my perfectly benign dictator would have the people's interest as motivation and would act only in the people's interest. Being perfect, he or she would naturally know what that is.
In this idealized case, "the people" would actually be everyone in the entire world.
>> Obviously we start from two very different back grounds regarding the role of the state in our lives. << (Robes)
Yes. Possibly because I grew up mostly in Canada, and that's where I live.
>> I'm using the money to pay for things like roadways that I use, police protection, etc. They're using it to be able to hire employees. How are these situations different? It's money that belongs to a person, that they use to fund the government that they created/support. << (PSI)
I don't think of the employee as the one who pays the income taxes, since the employee never had that money to give to anyone.
What you do pay is sales tax.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I don't think so twinky. I was just holding that money in my wallet for the government, who needed me to transport it from my employer to the place of business.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Let's take the employee again. The company pays $10 per hour of that employee's work. The employee receives $7, the other $3+ go to the government. Those $3+ never belonged to the employee, but the $7 does.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think of the employee as the one who pays the income taxes, since the employee never had that money to give to anyone.
This is one of the great deceptions perpetrated on the American public. I'm not against income tax per se, but if people had to write a check each month to the government I bet they'd care a lot more about how their money was spent. Right now, income taxes make no real financial impresson on most people because they track their money on a cash, not accrual basis.
It's the same reason casinos use chips instead of cash.
posted
I'm having a hard time understanding why you think the money isn't mine. Is it because I never touched it?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
That was most unfair.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
