HEY! METRO!
Keep our trains. Tax commuters.
posted by 100YearsOfTrash @ 11:06 PM
On Draught
Spoetzl Brewery Shiner BockHouse Red
Dancing Bull Zinfandel(2004)Now Playing
Previous Posts
- Ghetto Rock
- Exclusive
- Nam June Paik's Electronic Superhighway
- District's Ex-Charter Schools Chief Admits Fraud
- Pneumonia
- ...and there it is.
- Where's Jill's Photo Credit?
- Publicly Funded Private School Update
- The Monongahela Mash Up
- Atmosphere
11 Comments:
Like your new 'hit the bricks' background.
Did my good friend who I gaggingly call libretarian just say tax?!? yikes! What's this world coming to?
thanks yank.
killa, liberty nauseates you?
what does that have to do with liberty?
Especially when you are already always claiming about how people shouldn't be taxed for anything? I am all for taxation. And I don't oppose the idea of a commuter tax, I just find it stiffling that you can be so for it in one instance and so against it in others.
I'm always claiming about how I wish I could decide how to spend my paycheck.
If you're all for taxation, you should ask them to take more out of your check and let the rest of us who aren't quite as enthusiastic about taxation have a bit more autonomy.
People do not walk barefoot because there are no government shoe factories.
That's a pretty empty quote. Where did you get it from?
But people do go hungry because people like yourself are unwilling to shoulder the few pennies it takes a taxpayer to fund meal assistance like that which feeds a extremely large majority of the children in DC public schools.
And those people who don't walk barefoot wouldn't be walking on sidewalks if it wasn't for taxes. If you don't want to pay taxes. Move to somewhere that a strong central government. There you would have plenty of autonomy, but nothing to spend your "hard earned" money on.
And it's pretty ridiculous for you to say you want more autonomy on how you spend your paycheck that is paid in full by MY tax dollars! Maybe you should go work for a charter school or a private school. At least then you would have more ground to stand on. Albeit still little ground.
I have absolutely no problem paying my fair share of taxes. I would prefer it that my fair share were decided a little differently then it currently is. i.e. a flat tax that didn't involve brakets but maybe that's even a little unrealistic. But not nearly as the idea of not paying into a system that provides essential services for all.
Would you be open to the idea of being able to choose how your tax dollars are spent for instance by precentage of what you paid in? At least then you would have control over what you paid into. I just think it's silly to actually believe that having no taxes that provide for essential services to cities and communities would improve your quality of life.
And just to really sufficiently kill this thread let me continue long enough to recognize the down side to taxes. (beyond the petty bs of just having less dollars to spend per paycheck, that's just being greedy)
I realize that a lot of these taxes have pork spending involved and that some of the services provided for have serious issues with the misallocation of funds, but you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. (if your gonna use silly little quotes so can I ) You yourself even posted on how corruption and individual greed has caused these things to suffer.
Yes, a great amount of oversight is still needed to improve the effectiveness of these services. But they are in fact, at least in large part, essential services and they should be provided for all.
When they are, and when they are administered properly it will in turn improve everyone's quality of life over time. Improving the level of education achieved in school systems, improving the road and city/suburban infrastructures (reducing the number of times your car gets thrashed by potholes in turn reducing your trips to a mechanic), improving and advancing early warning and emergency preparedness equipment, removing trash from your trash cans that you put out in front of your house once a week, and any number of other things.
If your so against paying for these things, it would behoove you to stop using them to allow for a better argument for you reluctance to want to pay taxes. Those who do want to pay for them will not in the least be bothered by you not driving on our roads paid for by taxes.
However, you may then want to pick up your mail everyday from the post office and take your own trash to the dump once a week. As an over abundance of either would be a burden to the rest of us who don't have a problem being a part of a society in which these services are provided for us.
Dude, you are all over the place. On the other site, I advocated for giving more power(with it money) to local governments and you jumped down my throat saying something like "states don't know shit" or the like. Now you're talking about taxes(grand sweeping gesture) but you only reference civil services provided to me by the local government, paid for by city income tax and property tax -- property tax is what funds most of those city services, so thank me instead of cursing me. Besides, I've never once complained about paying my property tax.
The fact of the matter is that the majority of that 43%(ALMOST HALF) of my paycheck robbed from me before I even get it goes to the feds. I am not sure, but I have to think alot of it goes here.
It's a nice vision to imagine that all of our taxes are going to feed starving babies, build roads, and house the homeless, but more is being spent blowing people up.
I am curious how you feel about socialism.
well on the other site, I must admit the only main goal was to get you riled up. For that I apologize. I was merely trying to instigate what has since transpired.
and my reply here was also never intended to be such an attack. I lashed out a bit but most of that was written in haste because I needed to be somewhere. In your previous posts which I was replying to you never once mentioned being an advocate of any kind of tax and did not differentiate between them.
Also keep in mind that in the Distric of Columbia, plenty of federal dollars go to the very services I mentioned. This is part of why some people have a problem with the idea of the District having the same rights as states which I happen to be for. I don't have a problem with states rights. I have a problem with disenfranchising the United States which I believe ultimately seems to be what would happen if we allowed the states to continue to define the laws, rules, and taxation of its constituents.
I think the struggle between the two is what makes our system work , albeit an imperfect struggle and in the process of which there are a lot of problems. But I don't think your attitude which seems largely against any centralized government would help make my life any better.
So as unbiased as you can, explain where you think federal tax dollars go to. Maybe we just don't see it the same way and we are needlessly bickering. Which most often tends to be the case.
Are you more of a rights theorist or consequentialist as far as being libretarian, or yet another branch? Because I at least understand the part of your cause that want to protect civil liberty. But why must one abandon our system of government to protect what already is provided for in our constitution?
You often say, let's start using the laws we already have instead of creating new ones. How does removing the federal government from the works help to reinforce civil liberty? And, if and when a state decides to pass a law that institutionalizes inequality and strips civil liberties away from another, how and who resolves it? Is the answer to tell whomever was affected tough luck? What happens?
I don't like these little comment windows. I end up going on and on without realizes how much I have written. Sorry it's so long again. Break it down though. If you really think that being a libretarian is the answer to our woes. Explain it to me.
About socialism: in theory, I love the idea. I am all for being a part of a community that does what it can to raise each other up. Granted that is never really how it plays out. AND, most importantly, I have never been subject to living in a socialist society. So far be it from me to say whether it really is a good idea or not.
" From the nineteenth century onwards, capitalism has developed immense productive forces. It has done so at the cost of excluding the great majority of citizens from influence over production. It put the rights of ownership before the rights of man. It created a new class of wage-earners without property or social rights. It sharpened the struggle between the classes.
Although the world contains resources which could be made to provide a decent life for everyone, capitalism has been incapable of satisfying the elementary needs of the world’s population. It proved unable to function without devastating crises and mass unemployment. It produced social insecurity and glaring contrasts between rich and poor. It resorted to imperialist expansion and colonial exploitation, thus making conflicts between nations and races more bitter. In some countries powerful capitalist groups helped the barbarism of the past to raise its head again in the form of Fascism and Nazism.”
— The Frankfurt Declaration 1951
please see "For the record..."
For the Record hardly gave anything in way of helping one understand the libretarian platform. And you answered none of my questions.
...that's because libertarianism ain't a platform. And it ain't Anarchism which is what you seem to have it confused with. If you want to know the platform of the Libertarian National Committee, go to there freaking website where you will learn that there are libertarians in local and national office all over the country. None of them advocate the destruction of our country's central government, or expatriation to Australia, or tearing up the constitution.
And the word is libertarian, as in liberty.
Post a Comment
<< Home