Most people have debt that is multiple times their annual salary. U.S. debt isn’t even a years GDP.
[/quote]
I will say though most people’s debt is going to be back with some form of “stuff” like a house, land, etc. Not always but I am guessing a large % is. The governments debt is mostly in the form of consumed items.
But yes I agree debt is necessary just not to the level we have taken it on all levels.
I am pretty debt free and I believe most people could be too, if they lived within their means. Including the good ole government.
Most people have debt that is multiple times their annual salary. U.S. debt isn’t even a years GDP.
[/quote]
I will say though most people’s debt is going to be back with some form of “stuff” like a house, land, etc. Not always but I am guessing a large % is. The governments debt is mostly in the form of consumed items.
But yes I agree debt is necessary just not to the level we have taken it on all levels.
I am pretty debt free and I believe most people could be too, if they lived within their means. Including the good ole government.[/quote]
[quote]Pushers wrote:
Literally in many cases knocking down doors with guns in hand. Thieves - much!
[/quote]
Does it happen? Sure. “literally in many cases”? No.
The vast, vast majority of taxation issues are resolved through mailings and phone calls.
Then there are audits… Still no guns or kicked down doors.
Then, if there is fraud typically, comes court. [/quote]
Maybe so… but taxation is still theft. At the end of the day you the individual cannot opt out, you cannot say “no”, so in essence it stealing - just by “the authorities” rather than some individual lowlife. No matter if it is “the government” who does it or some thug on the street the act itself is the same - they are taking your money agreement or no.
[/quote]
Sure you can, just move to Somalia. Enjoy.[/quote]
Sorry… sure I can what? And what has Somalia got to do with anything?
[/quote]
No taxes bro!!
Free will!!
Nobody is “robbing you”.
[/quote]
I volunteer to help him pack
[/quote]
That’s awfully nice of you. Next time I move house I’ll be sure to give you a yell.
[/quote]
[quote]Pushers wrote:
Of course I’m aware of Somalia, but I’d hardly say it’s a failed attempt at self-rule. Firstly, they didn’t decide on self-rule, it wasn’t a conscious decision by the populous to try it out but rather what happened when the gov failed, then the local warlords tried taking over and then the US intervened just to add yet another dimension of sh1t-storm to the brew. Given all of that, from what I’ve heard (and hell, I’m no expert on the matter and haven’t researched it) compared to their Statist neighbours in the region, Somali is actually doing pretty well. And we can hardly compare they to the settled Western nations, only to those around them for the time being (given it’s a relatively new thing - we have to give them time!).
[/quote]
[quote]Pushers wrote:
Literally in many cases knocking down doors with guns in hand. Thieves - much!
[/quote]
Does it happen? Sure. “literally in many cases”? No.
The vast, vast majority of taxation issues are resolved through mailings and phone calls.
Then there are audits… Still no guns or kicked down doors.
Then, if there is fraud typically, comes court. [/quote]
Maybe so… but taxation is still theft. At the end of the day you the individual cannot opt out, you cannot say “no”, so in essence it stealing - just by “the authorities” rather than some individual lowlife. No matter if it is “the government” who does it or some thug on the street the act itself is the same - they are taking your money agreement or no.
[/quote]
Sure you can, just move to Somalia. Enjoy.[/quote]
Sorry… sure I can what? And what has Somalia got to do with anything?
[/quote]
No taxes bro!!
Free will!!
Nobody is “robbing you”.
[/quote]
I volunteer to help him pack
[/quote]
That’s awfully nice of you. Next time I move house I’ll be sure to give you a yell.
[/quote]
That’s OK I’ld help any wing nut move to Somalia
[/quote]
Right wing? I’m not right wing! I’m just pro-freedom and anti-government force/coercion. Ring wing types tend to believe in having a big military, in the drug war, in religion, etc, etc - I don’t agree with any of those things.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You do realize if businesses controlled the roads in America every single road would have a toll, which basically amounts to a tax… [/quote]
No, it doesn’t. If Bill Gates elects not to drive next year, a portion of his money will still be taken in the name of road work. If Bill Gates elected not to drive, in a society full of toll roads, none of his income would be taken to pay for the roads.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You do realize if businesses controlled the roads in America every single road would have a toll, which basically amounts to a tax… [/quote]
No, it doesn’t. If Bill Gates elects not to drive next year, a portion of his money will still be taken in the name of road work. If Bill Gates elected not to drive, in a society full of toll roads, none of his income would be taken to pay for the roads.[/quote]
What’s he going to do, use his jet pack to get to work? Most of us can’t afford jet packs.
[quote]Pushers wrote:
No, I’m not a US citizen, I’m a UK citizen living in Germany (the better half is German). But to be frank, it doesn’t really matter which country we’re talking about, the principles are the same wherever you are. All governments steal from their citizens. I don’t agree with you on “implied consent” just because I live somewhere. I may HAVE to do it, but I certainly don’t have to consent to it! It’s like the social contract some people refer too - what a load of tosh that idea is. No contract is valid unless it is signed by both parties, ask any lawyer. I didn’t sign anything and I do not consent.
[/quote]
Okay. If this is true, why hasn’t the Supreme Court struck the 16th amendment down? Did your and my descendants not vote for the representatives that passed the 16th? Isn’t that consent?
I don’t even know what you’re talking about here. You would never “buy” a road. You will always use it without “buying” anything so to speak. The business relies on a % of shoppers buying products. It’s completely different.
You do realize if businesses controlled the roads in America every single road would have a toll, which basically amounts to a tax…
Unless you are withdrawing your use of all public goods, which is impossible without leaving the country, you can’t withdraw that consent. You will alwasyuse public goods.
Fine with me.
The shutdown was WAY overblown. Schools didn’t shut down, roads didn’t shut down. Non-essential personnel & work was shut down (like parks to make a point). For 99.99% of us life went on with zero interruption.
If businesses ran everything the same would not be the case. All you have to do is look at bank loan processing during the recession to see how life would come to a grinding hault if businesses ran everything.
Even if businesses ran everything, you would still need a way (government) to facilitate it.
How would they be turned back, with force?
Why not charge a whole lot more? The do now have a monopoly on travel and there is NOTHING to stop them from price gouging everyone.
[quote]
So MS wouldn’t be able to get out of paying in those little examples (I’m just imaging solutions here). If a compnay went bust, who would pick up the slack?.. Well, competitors one would think right? [/quote]
And how long would it take for their competitors to pick up the slack? What about in Detroit where their competitors are overseas? Would Toyota start paving the roads in Michigan?
I love the free market, but it’s not the end all be all of everything. The government shutdown affected barely anyone. Do you want Microsoft running the U.S. military; I hope it works better than Internet Explorer.
I can see a guy like Bernie Maddoff running the Marine Corps. That’ll work out great, I’m sure.
Most people have debt that is multiple times their annual salary. U.S. debt isn’t even a years GDP.
We need to tighten government spending, absolutely. Debt has always been used for public services. The Revolution was funded in part by debt for crying out loud. [/quote]
Look, I’m not going to address everything you said because I can see we aren’t going to see eye-to-eye on most, if any, of this stuff. However, all I’d say is yes, maybe your relatives did vote for the constitution and the 16th amendment to it, but that was their consent not yours or mine. Ask any contract lawyer if a contract agreed to and signed by one person is enforceable on their children and other descendants who didn’t take part in the original signing - I’d bet dollars to donuts the answer is “no”.
Ultimately I’ll put it like this. I believe initiating force against a peaceful person is wrong. Always. If you use force to get your way, you have lost the moral argument. The only time force is “ok” is when someone has already used it on you and you are acting in self-defense. Unfortunately, as George Washington said (and he should know a thing or two about it) the State is: “The legalised monopoly on the use of force in a given geographic area”. The State can force you to do things but you cannot force it. The State can force you to pay tax (force!) whether you like it or not. I’m against the use of force, as I said, period. Whereas the Free Market is a trade, there is no coercion. Just two parties agreeing to trade something (time, money, good, etc) for something else. Apple cannot force you to buy an iPhone. Microsoft cannot force you to buy Word. Virgin cannot force you to use their planes. It is your choice. With the State there is no freedom of choice, you HAVE to pay tax (or else), you HAVE to do with they say (or else), you HAVE to send your child to school (or else), etc, etc.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You do realize if businesses controlled the roads in America every single road would have a toll, which basically amounts to a tax… [/quote]
No, it doesn’t. If Bill Gates elects not to drive next year, a portion of his money will still be taken in the name of road work. If Bill Gates elected not to drive, in a society full of toll roads, none of his income would be taken to pay for the roads.[/quote]
What’s he going to do, use his jet pack to get to work? Most of us can’t afford jet packs. [/quote]
No but the point is, he’d only pay for the roads HE used, not all of them everywhere like he currently does with tax. I’m all for paying when you use something, that’s only right, but paying for someone else to use them…? That’s not right.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You do realize if businesses controlled the roads in America every single road would have a toll, which basically amounts to a tax… [/quote]
No, it doesn’t. If Bill Gates elects not to drive next year, a portion of his money will still be taken in the name of road work. If Bill Gates elected not to drive, in a society full of toll roads, none of his income would be taken to pay for the roads.[/quote]
What’s he going to do, use his jet pack to get to work? Most of us can’t afford jet packs. [/quote]
I have no way to offer specific details on how a non-socialized society would work. If paying the toll is too onerous for people, that will probably create a demand for new modes of transportation(or other roads), right? If few people are using the roads, that will probably force the owners of the road to lower their price to be more competitive, right?
-So, not a tax. The cost of transportation will be allowed to reach its market value.
OR: Communism and socialism have repeatedly proven themselves desirable and effective methods for determining the distribution and costs of goods.
[quote]Pushers wrote:
Look, I’m not going to address everything you said because I can see we aren’t going to see eye-to-eye on most, if any, of this stuff. However, all I’d say is yes, maybe your relatives did vote for the constitution and the 16th amendment to it, but that was their consent not yours or mine. Ask any contract lawyer if a contract agreed to and signed by one person is enforceable on their children and other descendants who didn’t take part in the original signing - I’d bet dollars to donuts the answer is “no”.
[/quote]
So, what at 18 you should have to sign a consent form consenting to the terms of the Constitution or be deported I guess. Fine, that works for me. 99.9999999% of Americans will sign it, but I’m sure we can find room in the bidget to make this happen.
Lawyers have tried to repeal the 16th. It has not happened and for good reason.
The state does not force you to stay in America. This is not North Korea, you are free to leave if you feel taxes are theft. You pay taxes as a member of American (or German) society because you benefit from that relationship.
Washington also pushed the Continetal Congress for a professional standing military. That’s not very free market.
Free market works great for things we don’t need, like MP3 players and cell phones. Where it breaks down is on essentials like roads, a military, etc… The only way free market would work for public goods/services is if some kind of group were created to oversee the production of said goods/services, imo. That sounds an aweful lot like government
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You do realize if businesses controlled the roads in America every single road would have a toll, which basically amounts to a tax… [/quote]
No, it doesn’t. If Bill Gates elects not to drive next year, a portion of his money will still be taken in the name of road work. If Bill Gates elected not to drive, in a society full of toll roads, none of his income would be taken to pay for the roads.[/quote]
What’s he going to do, use his jet pack to get to work? Most of us can’t afford jet packs. [/quote]
No but the point is, he’d only pay for the roads HE used, not all of them everywhere like he currently does with tax. I’m all for paying when you use something, that’s only right, but paying for someone else to use them…? That’s not right.
[/quote]
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I have no way to offer specific details on how a non-socialized society would work. If paying the toll is too onerous for people, that will probably create a demand for new modes of transportation(or other roads), right? If few people are using the roads, that will probably force the owners of the road to lower their price to be more competitive, right?
-So, not a tax. The cost of transportation will be allowed to reach its market value.
OR: Communism and socialism have repeatedly proven themselves desirable and effective methods for determining the distribution and costs of goods.[/quote]
You have no idea how the specific would work, but you want to try it anyway?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You do realize if businesses controlled the roads in America every single road would have a toll, which basically amounts to a tax… [/quote]
No, it doesn’t. If Bill Gates elects not to drive next year, a portion of his money will still be taken in the name of road work. If Bill Gates elected not to drive, in a society full of toll roads, none of his income would be taken to pay for the roads.[/quote]
What’s he going to do, use his jet pack to get to work? Most of us can’t afford jet packs. [/quote]
No but the point is, he’d only pay for the roads HE used, not all of them everywhere like he currently does with tax. I’m all for paying when you use something, that’s only right, but paying for someone else to use them…? That’s not right.
[/quote]
Who pays for the roads is poor areas?[/quote]
Businesses. You need customers? You need to build infrastructure so they can get to your business.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Most of us can’t afford jet packs. [/quote]
I skipped right over this line-what an effective argument from one who(I’m 99% sure) opposes welfare spending.[/quote]
Right, most of us have to buy cars you know to get to work, so we the middle & working class will have to pay toll to get to work while Bill get’s to fly his personal Jet pack to work.
I don’t oppose all welfare spending, not that that has anything to do with my statement at all.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You do realize if businesses controlled the roads in America every single road would have a toll, which basically amounts to a tax… [/quote]
No, it doesn’t. If Bill Gates elects not to drive next year, a portion of his money will still be taken in the name of road work. If Bill Gates elected not to drive, in a society full of toll roads, none of his income would be taken to pay for the roads.[/quote]
What’s he going to do, use his jet pack to get to work? Most of us can’t afford jet packs. [/quote]
No but the point is, he’d only pay for the roads HE used, not all of them everywhere like he currently does with tax. I’m all for paying when you use something, that’s only right, but paying for someone else to use them…? That’s not right.
[/quote]
Who pays for the roads is poor areas?[/quote]
Businesses. You need customers? You need to build infrastructure so they can get to your business.[/quote]
Like I said earlier:
How do you determine what roads you(the business) are going to pave?
What if you go under? Who picks up the slack?
What if your competition (someone who might pick of the slack) is overseas?
There aren’t a who lot of businesses in various Baltimore City projects. So I guess those roads don’t need to be paved, right?
What about rural roads to cities, where the majority of business are located, who pays for those?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Most of us can’t afford jet packs. [/quote]
I skipped right over this line-what an effective argument from one who(I’m 99% sure) opposes welfare spending.[/quote]
Right, most of us have to buy cars you know to get to work, so we the middle & working class will have to pay toll to get to work while Bill get’s to fly his personal Jet pack to work.
I don’t oppose all welfare spending, not that that has anything to do with my statement at all. [/quote]
I think one thing everyone needs to realize is for society to try a different “model”, you cannot think about how things are done today. It takes a new way of thinking and doing things differently which would not work in how society functions today.
