Taxes

[Dr Brain]

You may suggest it.

 

On the other hand, how you rationalize taxes is heavily intertwined with your world view.

[Simulacrum]

But, as mentioned previously, taxes and regulation aren't the same thing. It's unclear to me how discussion of global warming regulations relates to taxes.

 

Moving the discussion away from global warming is something that you endorsed yourself a couple of posts back. I'm only suggesting that somebody actually, you know... do it.

[SeVeR]

Simulacrum, rather than meandering your way into this topic to ask "Why, why, why?" to everyone's opinion like a small child might, why not gives us your own opinion - something you never seem to actually do.

[SeVeR]

Do you agree that the greenhouse effect exists?

 

No. The evidence shows that it doesn't.

What the hell?

 

Have you heard of Venus?

I do believe that its proximity to the sun has more to do with its temperature than its atmosphere does. In all likelihood, it's atmosphere actually keeps it from absorbing more solar radiation. Also, if you're comparing a 36% increase of C02 on Earth to the atmosphere of Venus, you've got something else coming.

Where did you find this information?...because it's wrong. The night-time temperature of Venus stays close to it's peak day-time temperature because the greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere. Other planets such as Mercury (closer to the sun) lose their heat at night and become far colder than their day-time temperature, and far colder than Venus. In fact Venus's day-time temperature is hotter than Mercury's due to the greenhouse effect, whilst being farther away from the Sun.

[SeVeR]

Yes but do you. 90-95% of the 'greenhouse effect' is water vapor and clouds. The other 5-10% is a mixture of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.

The greenhouse effect is a natural part of the Earth's ecosystem. If we had no greenhouse effect we would all freeze to death instantly. That is the scale of how important the greenhouse effect is, so surely you can envisage how a small man-made increase in the greenhouse effect can add 2-5 degrees of temperature rise.

 

Did you know that throughout the history of the planet the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased in accordance to temperature increases? Did you also know that we were in a 'mini-ice age' until the 1800's? Did you know that we are on a natural cycle to be increasing temperatures?

The scale of the temperature increase is greater than the historical increases. We add on a man-made CO2 component.

 

The only way you can support an argument for global warming is by ignoring the climate studies beyond 150 years ago. If you account for all of the planets past climate and co2 history we are in perfect cycle with the historic climate cycles of the planet.

We are in a state of CO2 and temperature increase that is abnormal when looking at our natural history. Edited January 17, 2010 by SeVeR

[SeVeR]

Who among you believes that the tax money taken from you is better spent by the government than by yourself? Who among is so evil that you would steal my freedoms, take my livelihood, and destroy my future, and the future of my children to benefit yourself?

And the award for loaded questions goes to!...

 

On question 1. Yes, because without taxes we wouldn't have schools, free hospitals (UK), garbage-collection, postal-service, public-transport, immunisation programmes against diseases, and so on. Do you think someone will just collect your garbage, educate your children, and deliver your post for fun? No, we all put our money into the governments hands and TELL them what to do with it, and for the most part, they do it because it's their job to do it. Like it's our job to not be hauling our trash to the scrapheap, or delivering letters across the country to our relatives, or home-schooling our kids.

 

If we privatise all this, is that better? The prices will increase because private companies will want to take maximum profit, you'll have even less money than what you pay on taxes!

 

On question 2. You say that as if you get nothing out of it. Maybe if you refuse public services your children will thank you for being retarded, disease-ridden, and swimming in their own filth, unless of course you deal with this yourself, in which case: how will you earn any money?

Edited January 17, 2010 by SeVeR

[Dr Brain]

And the award for loaded questions goes to!...

 

On question 1. Yes, because without taxes we wouldn't have schools, free hospitals (UK), garbage-collection, postal-service, public-transport, immunisation programmes against diseases, and so on. Do you think someone will just collect your garbage, educate your children, and deliver your post for fun? No, we all put our money into the governments hands and TELL them what to do with it, and for the most part, they do it because it's their job to do it. Like it's our job to not be hauling our trash to the scrapheap, or delivering letters across the country to our relatives, or home-schooling our kids.

 

If we privatise all this, is that better? The prices will increase because private companies will want to take maximum profit, you'll have even less money than what you pay on taxes!

 

Companies can only charge what the market will take. What they want to charge and what they can charge are two very different things. Are you completely unaware of how supply and demand works? In a competitive economy, I would pay far less than I would pay in taxes. I also wouldn't pay for things I don't need.

 

As it stands, the postal service and public schools are jokes. Garbage collection is typically contracted out to a private company, at least in the town around where I live.

 

On question 2. You say that as if you get nothing out of it. Maybe if you refuse public services your children will thank you for being retarded, disease-ridden, and swimming in their own filth, unless of course you deal with this yourself, in which case: how will you earn any money?

 

I will send my children to private school. I don't take advantage of public health programs, and I'm perfectly happy to pay someone to take away my trash. UPS and FedEx do a far better job than the postal service, and if it were legal for them to carry post (it's illegal for them to compete with the post office), I would utilize them. Why do I need to pay for services I'm not taking advantage of?

[SeVeR]

Companies can only charge what the market will take.

Which translates as: companies will only charge what your wallet will take. They will charge you as much as is possible to maximise their profit, while allowing you to barely afford it. If you can barely afford taxes now, then think how much worse a profit-taking company will be.

 

The prime example is health-care, about 20% of the American population couldn't even afford it (until new goverment schemes). So was this your version of what the market can take? If 80% are being charged more, then the health insurance company can afford to price themselves out of the range of 20% of the population, right? They make more profit by charging some people more than by losing the business of the few.

 

So lets see, you'll "pay someone to take away your trash". Suppose you pick one these companies who "charge what the market will take". So what happens to the 20% who are priced out of being able to afford these companies? There will be trash-heaps stinking out every part of town...

 

What they want to charge and what they can charge are two very different things. Are you completely unaware of how supply and demand works? In a competitive economy, I would pay far less than I would pay in taxes. I also wouldn't pay for things I don't need.

My previous example shows exactly why competition doesn't always work for the consumer. Not when public sanitation, education and health are at stake.

 

As it stands, the postal service and public schools are jokes. Garbage collection is typically contracted out to a private company, at least in the town around where I live.

The government tax-collections pay for that contracting out though. The postal service was always reliable when I was in America. Public schools are always dependent on the area, but how much more would a private school charge you?

 

I will send my children to private school. I don't take advantage of public health programs, and I'm perfectly happy to pay someone to take away my trash. UPS and FedEx do a far better job than the postal service, and if it were legal for them to carry post (it's illegal for them to compete with the post office), I would utilize them. Why do I need to pay for services I'm not taking advantage of?

So all this payment on your part (for essential services that, if privatised, would charge some people out of the market entirely)... is this going to cost you less or more than what you pay in taxes? Edited January 17, 2010 by SeVeR

[Dr Brain]

Which translates as: companies will only charge what your wallet will take. They will charge you as much as is possible to maximise their profit, while allowing you to barely afford it. If you can barely afford taxes now, then think how much worse a profit-taking company will be.

 

Nope. That's not what it means. Brush up on your basic economics. In a monopoly, that's not even true. In a free and competitive market, it will charge the price where supply and demand intersect. If they charges more, then their competitors will put them out of business. If they charge less, they'll put themselves out of business.

 

The prime example is health-care, about 20% of the American population couldn't even afford it (until new goverment schemes). So was this your version of what the market can take? If 80% are being charged more, then the health insurance company can afford to price themselves out of the range of 20% of the population, right? They make more profit by charging some people more than by losing the business of the few.

 

Health care is not a free market. It's been regulated into a monopoly in nearly every area. Government creating a problem by destroying companies, then stepping in to "solve" it isn't proof that government is good and companies are bad. Try again.

 

So lets see, you'll "pay someone to take away your trash". Suppose you pick one these companies who "charge what the market will take". So what happens to the 20% who are priced out of being able to afford these companies? There will be trash-heaps stinking out every part of town...

 

The people who can't afford that already can't afford the taxes and have moved elsewhere. I don't see how your argument makes any sense.

 

My previous example shows exactly why competition doesn't always work for the consumer. Not when public sanitation, education and health are at stake.

 

No, it doesn't. It only shows your own ignorance of basic economics.

 

The government tax-collections pay for that contracting out though. The postal service was always reliable when I was in America. Public schools are always dependent on the area, but how much more would a private school charge you?

 

Doesn't the fact that they pay for the contracting pretty much prove that companies ask for reasonable prices? I'm just asking that the overhead be removed, and that I get to choose which companies I patron.

 

So all this payment on your part (for essential services that, if privatised, would charge some people out of the market entirely)... is this going to cost you less or more than what you pay in taxes?

 

Less, of course. I won't be paying for services I don't use, and I'll be getting a better deal on things I do use.

[Sketter]

(mod request to have global warming posts that went beyond the scope of this topic be deleted or moved)

 

A system is abused by the abuser as much as as it can.

Brain if you believe that the "supply and demand" is sound, and they won't try to get blood from a stone, then i truly believe you have been blessed in some form to have not witness, and therefore given you hope in that flawed theory. (unless you implement checks and balances(which is what a government is for))

In Ontario, all the car insurance company just raised their rates by I think 6%. Its hard for supply and demand to work if all the suppliers are working together.

 

Taxes are a byproduct of the "cause and reaction" of other bigger problems. Your money is mismanaged at the government level. Of course it is, but your looking at the bottom line, and then say no, i don't like what I'm being charged for, and there is nothing wrong with that, and every right to disagree with.

 

But because taxes is not an entity of it's own, just like a cable bill is not a entity of it's own, and ties in with the company that issued the bill. I guess the difference is you have choices, (in short term) and can switch and or threaten the company.

 

So now you need to look at taxes the same way and look who's running your country and what their doing. This is more long run now, and you live in a country that's democratic. (or so they say) So all you can really do and put in a vote for change and hope for the best.

 

Sure you can say now this gets political, but taxes are political. And when you start talking about that world, it's much more trouble then it's worth, and makes you give up before you even try, and that's why they got you by the balls with taxes. (i don't want to go into depth here, your smart, so i don't need to type more when what i need so i assume you understand where I'm going with this)

 

Here is (take it or leave it) an example that comes to mind about abuse, mismanagement, smoke and mirrors.

One of the most widely abused (not sure what word to use here cause i'm not sure where it even falls under) government policy(?) is the "tax incentive."

In my city there is property that is being used right now as a race track (the only one in the city) and it's sure s hell not struggling to make a profit. They are owned by "Cordish" If you ever look up Cordish, you will find that they are not short on cash. Cordish has so much money that they don't know what to do with it, so they asked for help from the city for a 32 million dollar tax incentive so they can build a full size casino, expansion of the hotel, from 1 to 4, and a shopping center.

Do they need it? No. They have the money to do this without any help.

They only issue is that it's some what controversial, and not everyone wants the casino, and they really did try to make this i a "hush hush issue" that eventually got public cause of 32 mil hand out.

 

So with a bit of lobbing and back room deals they quickly put the spin of it will generate tons of money for the city, increase jobs, boost the city status, and bring in more tourism. Nothing wrong with this of course, but it's a 32 million dollar hand out, with zero strings, zero checks and balances of a city claiming to go bankrupt, and just finished cutting some public services, because "we can't afford to keep them running."

 

(have i mentioned that Cordish was going to expand the racetrack with out without the "tax incentive"?)

 

And now, of course, since we're so poor of a city(and much poorer now after giving 32 mil), we now need to slap more taxes. Opps, lets give drivers a harder time, lets make up this administrative fee of $40 per car when they need to renew their license, on top of the renewal fee. Lets tax more for liquor, lets make it hard for homeowners to buy a house by slapping it's own %3 city homeowner sales tax, on top of the provincial sales tax, ect, ect...

 

What's my point? Why the rant?

Taxes is the bottom line that effects you and me. But taxes is a byproduct of a bigger issue, that we all turn a blind eye to. When someone makes a backroom deal with elected officials, in tern we suffer for their greed. In my province, there is no boundary to which a private organization can financially back up a candidate running for office. When they are elected, it would be naive to think that didn't come with strings. (like a tax incentive)

 

Not saying that this happens in every case, and i understand that what you look at, and what you stated are about services that you may have never used and wounder why you are paying for it, just like perhaps a channel you are getting charged on your TV bill that you don't even watch. But a lot of the time, everything is a broader issue.

We also live in a society where we are taught (or once was) to care for one another, whether they are family, friend, neighbor, or someone across town. Because of this, it became a practice to support one another in a time of need, and this is (if your government supports it) being reflected by the services provided by the government, though your money.

 

Yes, there is abuse, yes there is mismanagement, yes there is someone out there trying to take blood from a stone (aka my rant above), and when they are done, they go out looking for someone else because they can, and because we don't care enough (hopefully i can say "yet") to actually look beyond that bottom line.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Sketter

[Simulacrum]

Simulacrum, rather than meandering your way into this topic to ask "Why, why, why?" to everyone's opinion like a small child might, why not gives us your own opinion - something you never seem to actually do.

[SeVeR]

Lol, still no opinion from Simulacrum. Are you afraid of criticism, so you only criticise what other people have to say? Get some balls laddy.

 

Dr B., I'll get to your post later.

[Simulacrum]

Not only do I draw criticism, but I've apparently managed to draw personal criticism. Accepting that paradigm: even though I appear to agree with you on taxes, go fuck yourself.

[Dr Brain]

A system is abused by the abuser as much as as it can.

Brain if you believe that the "supply and demand" is sound, and they won't try to get blood from a stone, then i truly believe you have been blessed in some form to have not witness, and therefore given you hope in that flawed theory. (unless you implement checks and balances(which is what a government is for))

In Ontario, all the car insurance company just raised their rates by I think 6%. Its hard for supply and demand to work if all the suppliers are working together.

 

I've witnessed price gouging only in monopolistic markets, which I'm entirely opposed to. I don't believe the government should allow a single telephone company to operate in a region. Regulation of monopolies is the *one* service that I think governments should exist to provide (technically I believe there are two other fundamental reasons, but they're not as necessary, and not at all applicable to this discussion).

 

The idea is to get the abusers working against each other so that the consumer benefits. Why can't Ontario car owners go out of town/province for their insurance needs? Presumably because there's a law? Why can't new companies start up? Because the government regulates them too heavily?

 

The rest of your rant is about politicians. I don't believe that politicians will become better people once the government gets more power. I actually tend to believe the exact opposite. That's why I want as small a government as possible, so that the evil is limited in scope.

 

Yes, we are taught to love thy neighbor, but that's not the job of the government. That's the job of charities and churches.

[Simulacrum]

Yes, we are taught to love thy neighbor, but that's not the job of the government. That's the job of charities and churches.

Private (and especially religious) charities have been known to use their positions as a political bargaining chip. You may still think that private charities should be preferred over state welfare, but it is certainly not true that they have identical goals.

[Dr Brain]

So don't donate to those ones. There are plenty of other ones that don't.

 

Indeed it's true that they don't have identical goals. State run welfare programs measure success by how many people utilize the program. Private charities measure success by how many people no longer have to. Guess which I'd rather have my money forcibly taken to support?

[Simulacrum]

 

My point is that saying "Oh, the charities will take care of it" is rather naive when charities providing food for tens of thousands of people are willing to withdraw their support over political issues. When a charity acts like this, it is certainly not following your "get people back on their feet" formula.

[Dr Brain]

I'm not saying charities will take care of it. I'm saying people will take care of it through charities. If the charity isn't getting the job done, you send your money to a charity that will. Charities exist to forward the cause of those that donate, not the other way around. If your charity doesn't understand that, you need to take your money elsewhere.

 

It's the same with every other company. If a gas station is trying to preach religiousity to you, maybe it's time to take your business elsewhere. If your grocery store isn't living up to your expectations, you need to patron a different one. If Dell is giving you a hard time, maybe you should try HP. If you're not happy with how Walmart treats you, try Target. If you don't like Joe's Pizzeria, try a different pizza place.

 

Most companies will bend over backwards to help resolve any issues you've got, since they know their competitor would love to have your business. The same can't be said about the DMV.

 

Telling me that there are bad companies out there doesn't change anything. It only matters if they have no competition (like the government, or telecomm monopolies).

[Simulacrum]

I'm not saying charities will take care of it. I'm saying people will take care of it through charities.

This is actually a testable claim. Do people take care of everything through charities when welfare does not exist?

[SeVeR]

When your house is on fire Dr. Brain I hope your tax dollars pay for some firemen to put it out... and an ambulance to take you all to hospital, and maybe some police officers to catch the guy who set it on fire.

 

Simulacrum, what is with the all the time? Are you really that much of a jackass?

[Simulacrum]

I'm not used to forums so given to sanctimony.

[Dr Brain]

That's the best you can come up with? Firemen and ambulances? How do you justify the rest?

 

I only have one question: do you think you know what to do with my money better than I do? If the answer is yes, then the discussion will end there, as that's the original question that started this thread.

[SeVeR]

Yea, that's the best I can come up with. You didn't really come up with a rebuttal, so do you accept that you need to pay taxes now?

 

Do I know how to spend your money better than you do? No.

 

In your imaginary world without taxes how would crime be stopped? Maybe after a while a bunch of guys will get together with their guns to create a kind of crime-stopping militia... like a police force maybe. Since they won't have time for paid jobs they'll probably start asking for donations. Maybe when that fails they'll force people into giving them money, like a mafia. Perhaps a private security company will step in, but what will govern them? Will they act within the law?... for that matter, how will criminals be prosecuted, how will they be imprisoned. Who pays for the prisons and the courts? How will we deal with maintaining things like the sewage system, or the quality of roads, or dealing with extreme weather by gritting roads, or building new roads, or keeping the armed forces in operation without turning them into profiteering pirates... Add to all this the things I've mentioned already like public schools, waste-collection, postal service, fire brigade, police, ambulances. What about customs, immigration, coastguard.

 

The list is endless. You just don't want to pay taxes, and you simply have no idea how different your world would be without all the things they pay for.

 

In other words, you have to be as dumb as a brick to think your country would be better without the things that taxes pay for, but hey, you don't even believe global warming. I'll even tell you why you don't want any taxes or believe in global warming, it's because you've identified so much with the Right in politics that you'll say just about anything to justify the extreme of that position. I mean, a few posts ago you told us the greenhouse effect doesn't exist and Venus is just hotter because it's closer to the Sun, which would have made sense if Mercury isn't colder. And you do all this because it's satisfying isn't it? It's all a matter of pride because to reinforce your view makes you feel good. Right now you are probably only thinking about how you can descend further into absurdity in order to support your warped and quite frankly funny outlook on all things divided in right Vs left politics by other people, people who probably laugh at your response to defy any and all logic to support one side of that debate because you've taken refuge in it by identifying with it and taking pride in it. If a liberal told you a cliff was too steep to jump off then you would jump off it to prove him wrong. Seriously, just come back from the edge mate.

Edited January 18, 2010 by SeVeR

[Dr Brain]

I accept that there is a need for taxes for certain things. I don't believe that covers hospitals, but police forces and fire stations are in a grey area. It may be possible to privatize them, or it may not. Taxes are needed to cover national defense (unless a way can be found to privatize this), a legal system of last resort (private arbitration being preferred in every case), a system for prevention of monopolies, and a system for copyright and patents (hopefully without the corruption of our current one).

 

You simply can't imagine a world without government. You're filled with so much hatred that you think that companies will gouge people just because they're companies. I can only assume you've never been shopping or paid for anything in your life. I can't conceive of the sheltered life you must live to have the worldview that you do.

 

You can't create these absurd scenarios and expect to disprove my point with them. I know exactly how life would be with a small government. One needs only to look at history. There was human civilization before welfare, public schools, and public fire stations. Public militias existed and never became anything like the mafia. In this age of globalized economies and instant communication, the need for a centralized government is less than ever. Many of the problems that government solved no longer exist.

 

You're oversimplifying my Venus argument. Whether you're doing this on purpose or not, I cannot tell. Feel free to call me dumb for not believing in Global Warming, something for which there is no scientific evidence (science being defined as a hypothesis that fits the data, instead of the other way around). I believe that's the same argument used by you against religion (I could be thinking of someone else, though).

[SeVeR]

I'm glad you think there is a need for taxes. It then becomes a matter of how much tax is needed. I don't see how fire and police could ever be privatised. Would you do "crime insurance" and "fire insurance", where they only put out your fire if you've been paying the insurance company to do it?

 

You simply can't imagine a world without government. You're filled with so much hatred that you think that companies will gouge people just because they're companies.

Firstly, it seems that we can both imagine a world without government, and we both recognise that one is needed. Your first paragraph makes that clear. I think you are just trying to throw my statement back at me here.

 

On the second point, of course companies will gauge people. The whole purpose of a company is to maximise their profit. You are of course right that often this means lowering prices to out-do the competition. However, you need to recognise that if a company can find a way to increase their profit without lowering their price, they will choose that option. Like you say, it happens in a monopoly. When there is insufficient competition, or when companies get together and choose a minimum price for their product, then competition fails. Surely you can see that when ten companies are fighting for customers they will not compete until their prices near-enough match their supply costs. If they did that then they might win the fight, but their profit would be next to nothing. Also, not all customers go for the cheapest product, which was my point about health insurance companies earlier. If health insurance can be charged higher for the majority, then they can afford to out-price the minority of even having access to their product. You didn't answer why this is the right thing. Surely being able to see a doctor if you are injured is something that transcends this debate, it being more of a right than a luxury, causing the private argument to fail on those grounds. This happens when there are lots of companies or few. If you stop this monopoly then good for you, but some people may still not be able to afford it, which takes us back to the point that health is a right, not a luxury. Why? Because it can be a right; morally speaking, if we can choose to make it a right then we should.

 

There was human civilization before welfare, public schools, and public fire stations.

And illiteracy, poverty, and devastating, lethal fires were rife...

 

Public militias existed and never became anything like the mafia.

I could probably find counter-examples. I mean how do you think mafias got started in the first place. However, lets suppose you get a public militia going in your police-less world. How do they get paid? Do they go round asking people to pay them to catch the burglar? Do they ask for a "little extra" to shoot the burglar in the face? I mean, who would prosecute them? There is no police! The incentive to catch the criminal in order to get paid will arise too, so you'll get the wrong people being captured or killed just because the militia wants to get paid. Then another problem is how would these public militias deal with complicated crime like fraud and smuggling? The effectiveness against these crimes would drop massively, there would be no oversight for the militia that keeps them from breaking the law themselves, bias would increase, wrongful convictions would increase, injustice would creep into every area.

 

Once captured I suppose they deliver them to the government prisons and jails, manned by government guards who take them to government courts? Lots of tax dollars going in there still...

 

It just cannot work. So sure, public militias existed, but is that an argument? Of course not, because when they did exist, all the things I've mentioned existed with them. Our current police forces are better, much better than that.

 

So you accept there is a greenhouse effect now? A few posts ago you claimed it doesn't exist. Then you said Venus doesn't have one, I could quote you. My point being that you abandon logic when it suits your political allegiance.

Edited January 19, 2010 by SeVeR