Why are people scared of taxes?

[myrkul]

Did Standard Oil give away free oil?  Free public health care will not benefit at all from being a monopoly.  Quite the opposite.

Wait, I thought you said it wasn't a monopoly. Now you say it is, but it won't benefit.

What did I say wasn't a monopoly or is?  I don't get it.

/sigh... Let me know when you can keep up with your own statements.

[1714564020]

1714564020

[sturle]

Did Standard Oil give away free oil?  Free public health care will not benefit at all from being a monopoly.  Quite the opposite.

Wait, I thought you said it wasn't a monopoly. Now you say it is, but it won't benefit.

What did I say wasn't a monopoly or is?  I don't get it.

/sigh... Let me know when you can keep up with your own statements.

I think you must have misread something.  I'm reading my quotes over and over again, and can't understand where you think I wrote that free public health care is a monopoly or has anything in common with a monopoly.  And I still don't understand what you think healthcare has to do with oil or an oil company.

In Cuba there is a public monopoly on healthcare.  It is better and much cheaper than healthcare in the USA, but public monopoly on healthcare is still very different from what I describe.

[myrkul]

Did Standard Oil give away free oil?  Free public health care will not benefit at all from being a monopoly.  Quite the opposite.

Wait, I thought you said it wasn't a monopoly. Now you say it is, but it won't benefit.

What did I say wasn't a monopoly or is?  I don't get it.

/sigh... Let me know when you can keep up with your own statements.

I think you must have misread something.  I'm reading my quotes over and over again, and can't understand where you think I wrote that free public health care is a monopoly or has anything in common with a monopoly.  

Nope, I didn't misread. "Free public health care will not benefit at all from being a monopoly.  Quite the opposite."

Not "would not," not "isn't a monopoly," but "will not benefit from being a monopoly."

That means that it is a monopoly, but will not benefit.

"Quite the opposite" goes on to imply that it will, in fact, go through money like it was water.

You're doing a poor job of selling me on this.

[Lethn]

What I hate about taxes and government isn't what they provide, but the fact that they are trying to enforce human kindness.

They're essentially going "Well done, you've earned that cookie all by yourself, now go share it with that kid over there" it may seem logical at first, but if you keep doing it again and again, having to share to other kids as well, and they've taken away practically everything until there's only a crumb left then you're going start resenting the jackass making you share it because you only have a crumb while everyone else is getting the whole thing.

[Richy_T]

Most governments can control their spending just fine.  Japan has more net credit than the USA has net debt.  Your country has many problems, and right now it seems the politicians are stuck in some pissing contest instead of doing anything.  The natural consequence should be a total replacement of Congress, but it seems the piss has created so much fog in the cold political environment that people can't see what is going on.

Just as a FYI, it's not my country. I just choose to live here. My own country has plenty of problems of its own though.

[sturle]

Did Standard Oil give away free oil?  Free public health care will not benefit at all from being a monopoly.  Quite the opposite.

Wait, I thought you said it wasn't a monopoly. Now you say it is, but it won't benefit.

What did I say wasn't a monopoly or is?  I don't get it.

/sigh... Let me know when you can keep up with your own statements.

I think you must have misread something.  I'm reading my quotes over and over again, and can't understand where you think I wrote that free public health care is a monopoly or has anything in common with a monopoly.  

Nope, I didn't misread. "Free public health care will not benefit at all from being a monopoly.  Quite the opposite."

There must be some subtle language detail there I don't understand.  English is not my first language.  My meaning was the opposite.  I'll try to write it differently: It will be a disadvantage for the free public health care to have a monopoly on health services.

Not "would not," not "isn't a monopoly," but "will not benefit from being a monopoly."
That means that it is a monopoly, but will not benefit.

I probably meant "would not" then.  It should be clear from the context that I don't see any reason for the free public health service to be the only choice for patients (those who are in a position to choose).  I.e. not a monopoly.  I wrote this very clearly until you started diverting the discussion with some irrelevant oil company.

"Quite the opposite" goes on to imply that it will, in fact, go through money like it was water.

Huh?  I didn't get that one either.  My intention was to express even stronger that there is no reason for the free public health care to be a monopoly.

[Jimmy Chang(y)]

What I hate about taxes and government isn't what they provide, but the fact that they are trying to enforce human kindness.

They're essentially going "Well done, you've earned that cookie all by yourself, now go share it with that kid over there" it may seem logical at first, but if you keep doing it again and again, having to share to other kids as well, and they've taken away practically everything until there's only a crumb left then you're going start resenting the jackass making you share it because you only have a crumb while everyone else is getting the whole thing.

What's wrong with forcing human kindness? Unfortunately it would seem its needed.





People take their lives for granted, think for a second about those who did not have the chances/opportunities or luck you may or may not of had.

Tax's are a great thing, unfortunately those with the power don't seem to be spending the money wisely(to put it nicely). All this talk off tax's are stealing etc etc, ridiculous, you complain you do not have enough, yet when compared to 90% of the worlds population you have so much more, yet you want more.

With the technology and wealth we have today in the world it could be so much better than it is, but whilst we have greedy (fat?) fucking pricks who always want more and more we will be stuck with this rat race which is life. (for the western world atleast)

Now im not saying the state or government of any country is doing the 'right' thing, but tax's are for sure paramount to a healthy society, its just getting the tax's spent on the right things and not wasting them on things such as the illegal war in Iraq for example or bailing out a bunch scummy bankers.

I find it hilarious when you have people complaining about 'the poor people' taking all their money that they've worked so hard for  going into 'welfare', wake the fuck up, who's really taking your money? Poor people who for what ever reason cannot support themselves or the corrupt banks and corporations who are fucking the planet up for everyone? Everyone here seems to pride themselves on their intellect, well its simple maths, go figure.

[myrkul]

It will be a disadvantage for the free public health care to have a monopoly on health services.

How unfortunate, then, that it effectively would. The vast majority of people will have no other choice but to use the "free" public healthcare, as private doctors, if any exist, will be exceedingly expensive, and of course, charge for their services above and beyond the already nearly crushing tax burden required to fund the "free" healthcare.

[myrkul]

Now im not saying the state or government of any country is doing the 'right' thing, but tax's are for sure paramount to a healthy society...

This is like saying that cancer is paramount to a healthy body.

[sturle]

It will be a disadvantage for the free public health care to have a monopoly on health services.

How unfortunate, then, that it effectively would. The vast majority of people will have no other choice but to use the "free" public healthcare, as private doctors, if any exist, will be exceedingly expensive, and of course, charge for their services above and beyond the already nearly crushing tax burden required to fund the "free" healthcare.

Reality check: Do you have a free public school system?  Are there private schools as well, or do the public school system have a monopoly on running schools?  If there is demand for better or different services than the public provides, there is a market.

Countries with a free public healthcare system spends half as much taxpayer money per capita for a much more effective system than there is in the USA.  Your "nearly crushing tax burden required" is half of what you pay for the system now.

[myrkul]

It will be a disadvantage for the free public health care to have a monopoly on health services.

How unfortunate, then, that it effectively would. The vast majority of people will have no other choice but to use the "free" public healthcare, as private doctors, if any exist, will be exceedingly expensive, and of course, charge for their services above and beyond the already nearly crushing tax burden required to fund the "free" healthcare.

Reality check: Do you have a free public school system?  Are there private schools as well, or do the public school system have a monopoly on running schools?  If there is demand for better or different services than the public provides, there is a market.

Indeed we do. And the case that I explained for private doctors is precisely the situation which exists for private schools. They are quite expensive, and of course sending your kid to one does not get you a tax break. And I did not even touch upon the quality of the service provided: Public schooling is widely acknowledged as being sub-par, but while everyone knows that private schooling is much better, only the wealthy can afford it.

Countries with a free public healthcare system spends half as much taxpayer money per capita for a much more effective system than there is in the USA.  Your "nearly crushing tax burden required" is half of what you pay for the system now.

That may be true. Certainly this half-public, half-private monstrosity needs to die. But of course, those other countries are not the US, and therefore have different demographics, and a smaller population, and are therefore a smaller burden on a healthcare system.

[Jimmy Chang(y)]

Now im not saying the state or government of any country is doing the 'right' thing, but tax's are for sure paramount to a healthy society...

This is like saying that cancer is paramount to a healthy body.

I suppose your one of them greedy gits I was talking about?

Would you say your over weight? 

[Lethn]

What's wrong with forcing human kindness? Unfortunately it would seem its needed.

The point is that if you force human kindness then it is no longer kindness, now I'm absolutely rubbish at math, but I happen to know that a huge amount of taxes doesn't go towards helping people, but military spending and shady deals involving buying up worthless government bonds from people who can't pay them back and also in the long run does absolutely nothing but make the situation for them worse because it won't allow the economy to correct itself however that's a different subject entirely.

Charities use the same kind of underhanded logic when they try to justify going around and hassling people in supermarkets etc. ( happens a lot in the UK but they seemed to have stopped it where I am which I'm very grateful for ) but I constantly see them still going around asking for money after several years and I really do mean several because I remember them asking the same thing when I was young and a lot of people in the UK at least are beginning to agree this is more like extortion and emotional blackmail.

I was just having a look at the Chinese tax system as well and it's another example of this kind of hypocrisy, why is it that when politicians and tax advocates claim that taxes are there to help people they go ahead and tax the poor? What benefit do they get from it? The worst part is how people like you butcher the middle class and always try to find away to take all their money compared to spreading the taxation evenly so the rich have to pay a real share as well.

If you're going to be a tax advocate, then show some balls and tax the people who can afford to pay it.

[Jimmy Chang(y)]

What's wrong with forcing human kindness? Unfortunately it would seem its needed.

The point is that if you force human kindness then it is no longer kindness, now I'm absolutely rubbish at math, but I happen to know that a huge amount of taxes doesn't go towards helping people, but military spending and shady deals involving buying up worthless government bonds from people who can't pay them back and also in the long run does absolutely nothing but make the situation for them worse because it won't allow the economy to correct itself however that's a different subject entirely.

Charities use the same kind of underhanded logic when they try to justify going around and hassling people in supermarkets etc. ( happens a lot in the UK but they seemed to have stopped it where I am which I'm very grateful for ) but I constantly see them still going around asking for money after several years and I really do mean several because I remember them asking the same thing when I was young and a lot of people in the UK at least are beginning to agree this is more like extortion and emotional blackmail.

I was just having a look at the Chinese tax system as well and it's another example of this kind of hypocrisy, why is it that when politicians and tax advocates claim that taxes are there to help people they go ahead and tax the poor? What benefit do they get from it? The worst part is how people like you butcher the middle class and always try to find away to take all their money compared to spreading the taxation evenly so the rich have to pay a real share as well.

If you're going to be a tax advocate, then show some balls and tax the people who can afford to pay it.

Maybe what I said in my previous post was not clear enough, I am by no means a 'tax advocate' in the sense you are trying to portray. My point is, tax, the idea of it, is a good thing. Unfortunately the reality of tax is a sham, like  you pointed out above, the money does not end up where it should.

I was merely chiming in against some of these people who want no tax at all.. Now I can fully understand why people hate tax's because the money is wasted on shit, but IF spent correctly, tax's can play a significant role in building a better society.

All these dog eat dog, do it on your own back idealist's, be lucky you have the life you do, because many people, for what ever reason, cannot support themselves, some through faults of their own, others who have no choice in it. We are not all born equal, some of us are very lucky, some very unlucky.

[Lethn]

lol sorry about that, I tend to go full on logic spam if I see a hint of an opinion that's mathematically wrong

This is why though I feel if there must be taxes then they should be very low and of course a flat tax so there aren't loopholes, that way the government can't sneak the money to stupid ideas without people noticing and focus on helping people, I actually don't believe in our conventional Democracies at all, I'm a much bigger fan of the Switzerland style direct democracy because then citizens can overrule laws politicians make, it's my view if we had direct democracy, then the bailouts and the war in Iraq may well have never happened because tons of people would vote against it.

[myrkul]

My point is, tax, the idea of it, is a good thing.

Tax is taking money by force. Even if tax money were only used to help people, rather than blow them up, it would still not be a "good thing." Charity is a good thing. Forced charity is not.

[Jimmy Chang(y)]

My point is, tax, the idea of it, is a good thing.

Tax is taking money by force. Even if tax money were only used to help people, rather than blow them up, it would still not be a "good thing." Charity is a good thing. Forced charity is not.

We wouldnt need to force it if greedy people like yourself werent getting so irate at losing a few pennies. Your rich, way richer than you think, there are near 7 billion people in the world, I bet your in the top 10%, why you getting so mad at people with less money than you taking some in the form of benefits?

Direct your rage at your politicians, bankers and conglomerates who are truly sucking up your money.

But I dont think we're ever going to agree here, you like shiny things too much.

lol sorry about that, I tend to go full on logic spam if I see a hint of an opinion that's mathematically wrong

This is why though I feel if there must be taxes then they should be very low and of course a flat tax so there aren't loopholes, that way the government can't sneak the money to stupid ideas without people noticing and focus on helping people, I actually don't believe in our conventional Democracies at all, I'm a much bigger fan of the Switzerland style direct democracy because then citizens can overrule laws politicians make, it's my view if we had direct democracy, then the bailouts and the war in Iraq may well have never happened because tons of people would vote against it.

No worries man im exactly the same!

Totally with you on everything you've said. Yet here we are with cunts like George Osborne and Davey C, not to mention little nicky. Its all too infuriating ha.

[Lethn]

I've got to give Nick Clegg credit though if that's who you meant, the tax break for £10,000 earners was a great idea, the poor should never be taxed heavily if at all, they probably had to fight the neo-conservatives tooth and nail to get it passed.

[myrkul]

My point is, tax, the idea of it, is a good thing.

Tax is taking money by force. Even if tax money were only used to help people, rather than blow them up, it would still not be a "good thing." Charity is a good thing. Forced charity is not.

We wouldnt need to force it if greedy people like yourself werent getting so irate at losing a few pennies. Your rich, way richer than you think, there are near 7 billion people in the world, I bet your in the top 10%, why you getting so mad at people with less money than you taking some in the form of benefits?

Oh, that's rich. "We wouldn't need to steal if you would stop complaining about our stealing from you." 

I'm not mad at welfare recipients. I am mad at the "politicians, bankers, and conglomerates." Taxation itself, the taking of money involuntarily, is what I am against. What it is used for is largely irrelevant. That it mostly gets used to blow up brown people on the other side of the planet only makes it worse, in my eyes.

[Jimmy Chang(y)]

Credit where credit's due but he needs to grow a spine! He been bending too much for my liking Get George Galloway in I say, despite his BB stint hes the only MP standing for the truth.