From: one-if-by-land@concord.com
"Kris Krieger" wrote in message
news:13sts51rl0mvo79@corp.supernews.com...
> "Don" wrote in
> news:fqkgls08ml@news3.newsguy.com:
>
>>
>> "Kris Krieger" wrote in message
>> news:13sra2k66d6ss94@corp.supernews.com...
> [snipped]
>>> I don't know the origin of this thread, or where the "flat tax" bit
>>> came in.
>>>
>>> I wasn't commenting upon benefit, simply saying that the more money
>>> (or at least credit) people have available to them, the more they
>>> tend to spend. So, a person on a limited budget gets Warngler's on
>>> sale, or lower-cost cuts of meat, from WalMart, whereas someone
>>> following a larger budget might go to a boutique and get, I dunno,
>>> Gucci pants instead, and then go to the gourmet butcher and buy a
>>> pound of Kobe beef. So a direct comparison isn't necessarily
>>> accurate in terms of who is paying how much tax.
>>>
>>> Having done the "pasta'n'beans dinners for a week cuzza there's no
>>> money left after paying the rent" life (I was nowhere close to being
>>> born with the proverbial silver spoon in my mouth), I know how hard
>>> it is for a lot of people to get by - although I always did pay my
>>> taxes.
>>>
>>> OTOH, I hesitate stepping directly into the idea that it's
>>> automatically fair to rob Peter to pay Paul, mostly because I *did*
>>> live cheek-to-jowl for some years with many people in a similar
>>> situation, and know that not all poor poeple are energetic about
>>> working. In one sense, thre is no such thing at all as a "fair tax",
>>> because taxes are, in a sense, collected via coercion,
>>
>> Whats that other thing that is acheived through coercion?
>> Ummm...hmmm...its on the tip of my tongue.
>> Dangit, I hate it when that happens.
>> Oh, you know, its that thing when the bad guy steps out of the shadow
>> and points a weapon at you, and mumbles something about your wallet.
>> Darn it.
>> I'll think of it after awhile.........
>>
>>
>> although, in another sense, if they were managed
>>> decently, one can also make a case that they are "user fees" of a
>>> sort.
>>
>> Of a sort?
>> When you buy a loaf of bread do you *sort of* steal it?
>
> I avail myself of a few public services, such as the library and the Ag
> Extension info, things like that. So I don't mind supporting them, just
> as I prefer to use the Toll Road when I go into the city because it's
> faster and better-paved.
>
> Hence, "sort-of user fees".
>
>
>>> WHat i find most bothersome is that tax-related discussions always
>>> talk *only* about "the poor" and "the rich". There is no mention
>>> made of the people in the middle, and there is no mention made fo
>>> people who lived "skinny" for 40 yrs before being able to finally get
>>> to where they *might* be able to afford their own retirement - and
>>> then get told that they're "making too much". I also can't help but
>>> wonder to what extent productivity should be penalized.
>>
>> Non-productivity should be penalized.
>> HA!
>>
>
> Having known my share of people who insisted they were entitled to a
> portion of other people's (including my) earnings merely becasue they
> were born, and breathe, this topis holds a great amny mixed feelings for
> me.
>
> On the one hand, I know that *anyone* can be going along doing their
> best, and fall upon hard times, and in the past, we've donated rather
> generously to people in such straits. At the same time, as above: I've
> also known (and had to live under and/or next to, etc.) people who not
> only insisted they were entilted to other people's earnings, but even
> worse, raised as much hell as their whimsy chose in order to *interfere*
> with those people obtaining those earnings...
>
> The thing is that there really is a line (albeit a sometimes fuzzy one)
> between mercy/compassion, and being a sucker.
>
> I know that you have a better fundamental opinion of/belief in human
> nature than do I, and, although I do think it'd be better in many ways if
> people could just be left alone to live their lives, I've also seen too
> much for me to believe that's possible. I've seen how justice is quickly
> overturned by irrationality, how rights are trampled by personal
> insecurity-based hatreds, and how sadistic a-holes go out of their way to
> interfere with others and harm those who are less powerful (the most
> egregious form of this being child abuse).
>
> I also don't see how things could function of a practical level - for one
> thing, it's human nature (heck, Chimp nature) for groups to differntiate
> into leaders, and the rest of the group. In the best circumstances,
> people will look for those who are best qualified to address and
> potantially solve a given problem. Far too often, however, people just
> cluster around those who are loudest and most aggressive, and a mob
> psychology can then easily take over.
>
> So yes, *ideally*, I think Liberty is the best option. But
> *practically*, a lot of people just plain suck and can never be relied
> upon to "live and let live", and those people are why gov.ts exist. If
> nothing else, the people who jus twant to live their lives are always
> under threat from those who wish to interfere with or even destroy those
> lives, and banding together to resist that threat is pretty much human
> nature.
I have a couple family members that I've been helping out for awhile and I
do it cause I want to.
If we were geographically closer it'd be easier to manage, but we don't get
to make things perfect we just get to deal with them as they are.
When I win the lottery I'm gonna create a gated community and all of my
immediate relatives will be offered nice residences there, free of course.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
