Did You Eat Today?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:
borrek wrote:

That is supposed to magically change if taxes are decreased? Anyone here who says they would give a 1/3 to 1/2 of their paycheck to charity if taxes were removed is a fucking liar.

I doubt a significant share of the 1/3 to 1/2 of our paycheck–taken by threat of violence–is actually being spent on the end product these “charity” programs are supposed to deliver.

I am under no misconceptions that most of our tax money goes to the end product. For example, I had to pay $130 per slab to have my city sidewalks repaired by a private contractor, however had I not chosen to do so, the city would have done it for me and charged $250 per slab plus a $75 administration fee. Obviously this metaphor blows up to even larger margins when we’re talking highways. Even private charities will carry inefficiencies though, and these inefficiencies will multiply as they grow. I personally believe that the money “gained” by getting rid of a wasteful government will be more than negatively offset by people who just don’t give a shit about anyone else.

If we cut public education from taxes, all we have to do is look at the cost of private universities to see where things will head. Who will pay the charity for the education of entire neighborhoods of poor families?

On a side note, I don’t think that taxes are taken under threat of violence any more than it is a threat of violence that keeps me from murdering people. Consequences are not the same as threats. [/quote]

Denver Public schools costs us $7500/pupil/year (2004 figures). Comparable Catholic school costs $4700. It would be cheaper to let the poor keep their money and send their kids to the school of their choosing.

So if you knew you wouldn’t go to prison for not paying taxes (say your Timothy Geitner) you would still pay them? Bull shit.

22

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:
borrek wrote:

That is supposed to magically change if taxes are decreased? Anyone here who says they would give a 1/3 to 1/2 of their paycheck to charity if taxes were removed is a fucking liar.

I doubt a significant share of the 1/3 to 1/2 of our paycheck–taken by threat of violence–is actually being spent on the end product these “charity” programs are supposed to deliver.

I am under no misconceptions that most of our tax money goes to the end product. For example, I had to pay $130 per slab to have my city sidewalks repaired by a private contractor, however had I not chosen to do so, the city would have done it for me and charged $250 per slab plus a $75 administration fee. Obviously this metaphor blows up to even larger margins when we’re talking highways. Even private charities will carry inefficiencies though, and these inefficiencies will multiply as they grow. I personally believe that the money “gained” by getting rid of a wasteful government will be more than negatively offset by people who just don’t give a shit about anyone else.

If we cut public education from taxes, all we have to do is look at the cost of private universities to see where things will head. Who will pay the charity for the education of entire neighborhoods of poor families?

On a side note, I don’t think that taxes are taken under threat of violence any more than it is a threat of violence that keeps me from murdering people. Consequences are not the same as threats.

Denver Public schools costs us $7500/pupil/year (2004 figures). Comparable Catholic school costs $4700. It would be cheaper to let the poor keep their money and send their kids to the school of their choosing.

So if you knew you wouldn’t go to prison for not paying taxes (say your Timothy Geitner) you would still pay them? Bull shit.

[/quote]

Secular private schools blow that $7500 a year out of the water, and Catholic schools get subsidies from the church.

You made my point in regards to consequences. The vast majority of social programs are entirely funded by taxes, if you take the taxes away and rely on charity to fund programs, you also take away the consequences and most will not pay.

23

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:
borrek wrote:

That is supposed to magically change if taxes are decreased? Anyone here who says they would give a 1/3 to 1/2 of their paycheck to charity if taxes were removed is a fucking liar.

I doubt a significant share of the 1/3 to 1/2 of our paycheck–taken by threat of violence–is actually being spent on the end product these “charity” programs are supposed to deliver.

I am under no misconceptions that most of our tax money goes to the end product. For example, I had to pay $130 per slab to have my city sidewalks repaired by a private contractor, however had I not chosen to do so, the city would have done it for me and charged $250 per slab plus a $75 administration fee. Obviously this metaphor blows up to even larger margins when we’re talking highways. Even private charities will carry inefficiencies though, and these inefficiencies will multiply as they grow. I personally believe that the money “gained” by getting rid of a wasteful government will be more than negatively offset by people who just don’t give a shit about anyone else.

If we cut public education from taxes, all we have to do is look at the cost of private universities to see where things will head. Who will pay the charity for the education of entire neighborhoods of poor families?

On a side note, I don’t think that taxes are taken under threat of violence any more than it is a threat of violence that keeps me from murdering people. Consequences are not the same as threats.

Denver Public schools costs us $7500/pupil/year (2004 figures). Comparable Catholic school costs $4700. It would be cheaper to let the poor keep their money and send their kids to the school of their choosing.

So if you knew you wouldn’t go to prison for not paying taxes (say your Timothy Geitner) you would still pay them? Bull shit.

[/quote]

What money would you let them keep?

The poor don’t pay any significant income tax, so if income tax was abolished they would clearly be worse off.

24

http://video.pbs.org/program/1155680272/

25

[quote]borrek wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:
borrek wrote:

That is supposed to magically change if taxes are decreased? Anyone here who says they would give a 1/3 to 1/2 of their paycheck to charity if taxes were removed is a fucking liar.

I doubt a significant share of the 1/3 to 1/2 of our paycheck–taken by threat of violence–is actually being spent on the end product these “charity” programs are supposed to deliver.

I am under no misconceptions that most of our tax money goes to the end product. For example, I had to pay $130 per slab to have my city sidewalks repaired by a private contractor, however had I not chosen to do so, the city would have done it for me and charged $250 per slab plus a $75 administration fee. Obviously this metaphor blows up to even larger margins when we’re talking highways. Even private charities will carry inefficiencies though, and these inefficiencies will multiply as they grow. I personally believe that the money “gained” by getting rid of a wasteful government will be more than negatively offset by people who just don’t give a shit about anyone else.

If we cut public education from taxes, all we have to do is look at the cost of private universities to see where things will head. Who will pay the charity for the education of entire neighborhoods of poor families?

On a side note, I don’t think that taxes are taken under threat of violence any more than it is a threat of violence that keeps me from murdering people. Consequences are not the same as threats.

Denver Public schools costs us $7500/pupil/year (2004 figures). Comparable Catholic school costs $4700. It would be cheaper to let the poor keep their money and send their kids to the school of their choosing.

So if you knew you wouldn’t go to prison for not paying taxes (say your Timothy Geitner) you would still pay them? Bull shit.

Secular private schools blow that $7500 a year out of the water, and Catholic schools get subsidies from the church.

You made my point in regards to consequences. The vast majority of social programs are entirely funded by taxes, if you take the taxes away and rely on charity to fund programs, you also take away the consequences and most will not pay.
[/quote]

This is nonsense on so many levels.

First of all, welfare makes the cake smaller for everyone, private charity makes it larger.

Then, private schools cost less with better results than public schools.

Also,m you do not try to distribute money but utility. That however is rarely achieved by government programs. Think of refrigerator welfare for Eskimos.- Yes, on paper you have done a lot for them, but in reality you just have wasted a lot of money and created jobs for government parasites.

So without forced redistribution, there would be more wealth to go around that is infinitely better administered and targeted.

So no, we would not need to pay 50% of our incomes to “save the poor”.

As to the statement that taxes are not really coercive…

Ahem.

26

“Now we are seeing a resurgence of a feudal order, where the masses serve this small, inbred, super rich, network of perverts and satanists. Education and media will teach the serfs to embrace the wishes of this clique. Taser wielding cops and soldiers will prod the laggards.”
— Henry Makow

…and hungry people are also easier to control, up to a point.

Watch out if that point is passed.

27

[quote]borrek wrote:
Given that people in the US are still hungry, and people here are saying that they already give enough taxes, then is straightforward to see that you prefer keeping more of your money than feeding neighbors.

That is supposed to magically change if taxes are decreased? Anyone here who says they would give a 1/3 to 1/2 of their paycheck to charity if taxes were removed is a fucking liar.[/quote]

No. The only think you can conclude is that you’re a fucking idiot. I perfer to recover the 80% of taxes that are wasted. What you dont fucking understand, because you’re a total fucking tool, is that taxing ME more, isn’t going to feed anyone. That money is going straight into the pocket of some overpaid, politcal hack.

And thats the fucking point. God, I hate stupid people first thing in the morning.

You want to feed people? Cut taxes in half and watch the jobs created.

28

[quote]borrek wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:
borrek wrote:

That is supposed to magically change if taxes are decreased? Anyone here who says they would give a 1/3 to 1/2 of their paycheck to charity if taxes were removed is a fucking liar.

I doubt a significant share of the 1/3 to 1/2 of our paycheck–taken by threat of violence–is actually being spent on the end product these “charity” programs are supposed to deliver.

I am under no misconceptions that most of our tax money goes to the end product. For example, I had to pay $130 per slab to have my city sidewalks repaired by a private contractor, however had I not chosen to do so, the city would have done it for me and charged $250 per slab plus a $75 administration fee. Obviously this metaphor blows up to even larger margins when we’re talking highways. Even private charities will carry inefficiencies though, and these inefficiencies will multiply as they grow. I personally believe that the money “gained” by getting rid of a wasteful government will be more than negatively offset by people who just don’t give a shit about anyone else.

If we cut public education from taxes, all we have to do is look at the cost of private universities to see where things will head. Who will pay the charity for the education of entire neighborhoods of poor families?

On a side note, I don’t think that taxes are taken under threat of violence any more than it is a threat of violence that keeps me from murdering people. Consequences are not the same as threats.

Denver Public schools costs us $7500/pupil/year (2004 figures). Comparable Catholic school costs $4700. It would be cheaper to let the poor keep their money and send their kids to the school of their choosing.

So if you knew you wouldn’t go to prison for not paying taxes (say your Timothy Geitner) you would still pay them? Bull shit.

Secular private schools blow that $7500 a year out of the water, and Catholic schools get subsidies from the church.

You made my point in regards to consequences. The vast majority of social programs are entirely funded by taxes, if you take the taxes away and rely on charity to fund programs, you also take away the consequences and most will not pay.
[/quote]

Wow, who the fuck are these “poor” that cant take care of themselves? I’d love to meet fucking ONE of them…

29

[quote]Valor wrote:

No. The only think you can conclude is that you’re a fucking idiot. quote]

30

I dont get this… a pack of 18 eggs at walmart is $1.64. A box of mac and cheese(1k calories) is $.50. You are telling me that people cant find a few fucking dollars a week to pay for this shit? How fucking lazy can someone be? Oh yes, this is America.

31

[quote]borrek wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:
borrek wrote:

That is supposed to magically change if taxes are decreased? Anyone here who says they would give a 1/3 to 1/2 of their paycheck to charity if taxes were removed is a fucking liar.

I doubt a significant share of the 1/3 to 1/2 of our paycheck–taken by threat of violence–is actually being spent on the end product these “charity” programs are supposed to deliver.

I am under no misconceptions that most of our tax money goes to the end product. For example, I had to pay $130 per slab to have my city sidewalks repaired by a private contractor, however had I not chosen to do so, the city would have done it for me and charged $250 per slab plus a $75 administration fee. Obviously this metaphor blows up to even larger margins when we’re talking highways. Even private charities will carry inefficiencies though, and these inefficiencies will multiply as they grow. I personally believe that the money “gained” by getting rid of a wasteful government will be more than negatively offset by people who just don’t give a shit about anyone else.

If we cut public education from taxes, all we have to do is look at the cost of private universities to see where things will head. Who will pay the charity for the education of entire neighborhoods of poor families?

On a side note, I don’t think that taxes are taken under threat of violence any more than it is a threat of violence that keeps me from murdering people. Consequences are not the same as threats.

Denver Public schools costs us $7500/pupil/year (2004 figures). Comparable Catholic school costs $4700. It would be cheaper to let the poor keep their money and send their kids to the school of their choosing.

So if you knew you wouldn’t go to prison for not paying taxes (say your Timothy Geitner) you would still pay them? Bull shit.

Secular private schools blow that $7500 a year out of the water, and Catholic schools get subsidies from the church.

You made my point in regards to consequences. The vast majority of social programs are entirely funded by taxes, if you take the taxes away and rely on charity to fund programs, you also take away the consequences and most will not pay.
[/quote]

And where does the Catholic church get their money? Donations! You just disproved your own argument in the same paragraph.

32

[quote]Valor wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
borrek wrote:
But but I thought we could all rely on charity to do what the government can’t?!

If we weren’t paying 50%+ of our incomes to failed gov’t programs, we could all afford to be more charitable.

Fucking exactly…

On the civillian side I make $1200 a week.
I pay just over $600 in taxes a week… that does not include a half dozen OTHER taxes and fees I pay…

The problem is not that the government is not taxing us ENOUGH…its that for the most part they are just fucking burning that money.
[/quote]

Yep, the corporations need your subsidies…

33

[quote]MikeyKBiatch wrote:
I dont get this… a pack of 18 eggs at walmart is $1.64. A box of mac and cheese(1k calories) is $.50. You are telling me that people cant find a few fucking dollars a week to pay for this shit? How fucking lazy can someone be? Oh yes, this is America. [/quote]

Are you confused by the term poor or what?

What will raw eggs and dry pasta do for someone who can’t afford gas or electricity to cook food? Or do not have a fridge?

You should be thankful, instead of spiteful, that you’ve never been in such a situation where food is the primary concern of the day.

34

[quote]Valor wrote:
borrek wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:
borrek wrote:

That is supposed to magically change if taxes are decreased? Anyone here who says they would give a 1/3 to 1/2 of their paycheck to charity if taxes were removed is a fucking liar.

I doubt a significant share of the 1/3 to 1/2 of our paycheck–taken by threat of violence–is actually being spent on the end product these “charity” programs are supposed to deliver.

I am under no misconceptions that most of our tax money goes to the end product. For example, I had to pay $130 per slab to have my city sidewalks repaired by a private contractor, however had I not chosen to do so, the city would have done it for me and charged $250 per slab plus a $75 administration fee. Obviously this metaphor blows up to even larger margins when we’re talking highways. Even private charities will carry inefficiencies though, and these inefficiencies will multiply as they grow. I personally believe that the money “gained” by getting rid of a wasteful government will be more than negatively offset by people who just don’t give a shit about anyone else.

If we cut public education from taxes, all we have to do is look at the cost of private universities to see where things will head. Who will pay the charity for the education of entire neighborhoods of poor families?

On a side note, I don’t think that taxes are taken under threat of violence any more than it is a threat of violence that keeps me from murdering people. Consequences are not the same as threats.

Denver Public schools costs us $7500/pupil/year (2004 figures). Comparable Catholic school costs $4700. It would be cheaper to let the poor keep their money and send their kids to the school of their choosing.

So if you knew you wouldn’t go to prison for not paying taxes (say your Timothy Geitner) you would still pay them? Bull shit.

Secular private schools blow that $7500 a year out of the water, and Catholic schools get subsidies from the church.

You made my point in regards to consequences. The vast majority of social programs are entirely funded by taxes, if you take the taxes away and rely on charity to fund programs, you also take away the consequences and most will not pay.

Wow, who the fuck are these “poor” that cant take care of themselves? I’d love to meet fucking ONE of them…[/quote]

do you really live that deep in some suburban nightmare?

35

[quote]Valor wrote:
borrek wrote:
Given that people in the US are still hungry, and people here are saying that they already give enough taxes, then is straightforward to see that you prefer keeping more of your money than feeding neighbors.

That is supposed to magically change if taxes are decreased? Anyone here who says they would give a 1/3 to 1/2 of their paycheck to charity if taxes were removed is a fucking liar.

No. The only think you can conclude is that you’re a fucking idiot. I perfer to recover the 80% of taxes that are wasted. What you dont fucking understand, because you’re a total fucking tool, is that taxing ME more, isn’t going to feed anyone. That money is going straight into the pocket of some overpaid, politcal hack.

And thats the fucking point. God, I hate stupid people first thing in the morning.

You want to feed people? Cut taxes in half and watch the jobs created.[/quote]

There will always be poor people in any economy. Adjusting employment will never be the end all solution, sure it will help a lot, but it won’t magically make it go away.

the only way to provide a service like this is through taxes and government, and/or charity.

Borrek is simply arguing that most people really aren’t that charitable, and taxes aren’t the resaon. Look at Salvation Army christmas drives outside of grocery stores, are taxes REALLY keeping all those people walking by from dropping in 25 cents? Taxes aren’t holding people back from donating shit. Also,look at the amount of used clothes that are thrown away instead of donated, Salvation Army will drive to your house to pick that shit up but people still throw it away. I’d enjoy any argument that can explain how taxes are effecting that.

the whole reason programs like this were created was because people aren’t all that charitable. Simply feeding/clothing poor in the US isn’t as attractive to philanthropists and the Gates of the world these days. Sending malaria drugs to africa or funding gene therapy is in.

36

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
borrek wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:
borrek wrote:

That is supposed to magically change if taxes are decreased? Anyone here who says they would give a 1/3 to 1/2 of their paycheck to charity if taxes were removed is a fucking liar.

I doubt a significant share of the 1/3 to 1/2 of our paycheck–taken by threat of violence–is actually being spent on the end product these “charity” programs are supposed to deliver.

I am under no misconceptions that most of our tax money goes to the end product. For example, I had to pay $130 per slab to have my city sidewalks repaired by a private contractor, however had I not chosen to do so, the city would have done it for me and charged $250 per slab plus a $75 administration fee. Obviously this metaphor blows up to even larger margins when we’re talking highways. Even private charities will carry inefficiencies though, and these inefficiencies will multiply as they grow. I personally believe that the money “gained” by getting rid of a wasteful government will be more than negatively offset by people who just don’t give a shit about anyone else.

If we cut public education from taxes, all we have to do is look at the cost of private universities to see where things will head. Who will pay the charity for the education of entire neighborhoods of poor families?

On a side note, I don’t think that taxes are taken under threat of violence any more than it is a threat of violence that keeps me from murdering people. Consequences are not the same as threats.

Denver Public schools costs us $7500/pupil/year (2004 figures). Comparable Catholic school costs $4700. It would be cheaper to let the poor keep their money and send their kids to the school of their choosing.

So if you knew you wouldn’t go to prison for not paying taxes (say your Timothy Geitner) you would still pay them? Bull shit.

Secular private schools blow that $7500 a year out of the water, and Catholic schools get subsidies from the church.

You made my point in regards to consequences. The vast majority of social programs are entirely funded by taxes, if you take the taxes away and rely on charity to fund programs, you also take away the consequences and most will not pay.

And where does the Catholic church get their money? Donations! You just disproved your own argument in the same paragraph.

[/quote]

…only in the case of faith based schools. Still does not explain anything for secular.

37

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
It would be cheaper to let the poor keep their money and send their kids to the school of their choosing.

[/quote]

Hah do you really believe the true poor are paying that much in taxes?

38

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
Valor wrote:
borrek wrote:
Given that people in the US are still hungry, and people here are saying that they already give enough taxes, then is straightforward to see that you prefer keeping more of your money than feeding neighbors.

That is supposed to magically change if taxes are decreased? Anyone here who says they would give a 1/3 to 1/2 of their paycheck to charity if taxes were removed is a fucking liar.

No. The only think you can conclude is that you’re a fucking idiot. I perfer to recover the 80% of taxes that are wasted. What you dont fucking understand, because you’re a total fucking tool, is that taxing ME more, isn’t going to feed anyone. That money is going straight into the pocket of some overpaid, politcal hack.

And thats the fucking point. God, I hate stupid people first thing in the morning.

You want to feed people? Cut taxes in half and watch the jobs created.

There will always be poor people in any economy. Adjusting employment will never be the end all solution, sure it will help a lot, but it won’t magically make it go away.

the only way to provide a service like this is through taxes and government, and/or charity.

Borrek is simply arguing that most people really aren’t that charitable, and taxes aren’t the resaon. Look at Salvation Army christmas drives outside of grocery stores, are taxes REALLY keeping all those people walking by from dropping in 25 cents? Taxes aren’t holding people back from donating shit. Also,look at the amount of used clothes that are thrown away instead of donated, Salvation Army will drive to your house to pick that shit up but people still throw it away. I’d enjoy any argument that can explain how taxes are effecting that.

the whole reason programs like this were created was because people aren’t all that charitable. Simply feeding/clothing poor in the US isn’t as attractive to philanthropists and the Gates of the world these days. Sending malaria drugs to africa or funding gene therapy is in.[/quote]

You’re confusing cause and effect. Charitable contributions are weak because it has now become the “responsibility” of the gov’t. People think “Why should I, they can sign up for federal assistance?” If the gov’t wasn’t in the picture, people would be both more aware and more willing to help their neighbors.

39

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
It would be cheaper to let the poor keep their money and send their kids to the school of their choosing.

Hah do you really believe the true poor are paying that much in taxes?[/quote]

Income tax isn’t the only tax we have.

40

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
It would be cheaper to let the poor keep their money and send their kids to the school of their choosing.

Hah do you really believe the true poor are paying that much in taxes?

Income tax isn’t the only tax we have.
[/quote]

Oh yea i forgot the poor are being raped by land taxes and hunting fee taxes…

the taxes that the poor pay are the vast majority for items of need. Sales tax on food, some clothes that can’t be second handed, gas taxes if they have a car, ect.

removing the taxes on these items won’t net much in the way of income for them, especially not nearly 7500+, since theyre not buying a whole lot of food or gasoline to begin with. Doubly so if theyre using food stamps, then theyre paying even less taxes.