Why Government Grows

[Berzerker]

OB -

Berzerker, the idea of a state is that one person=one vote.

Why? We don't let children vote, are they not persons?

It's not a corporation held by shareholders, so you might as well admit right away that you are a neo-fascist capitalist.

But the state is analogous to a corporation with shareholders. That's why we don't invite Europeans to vote on our laws, they aren't shareholders.

The troll is so shameful I won't even bite.

But the crumbs on your face show you've already begun nibbling.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Berzerker
OB -

Why? We don't let children vote, are they not persons?

Bla bla. Bla bla bla bla. They aren't autonomous by legal bla bla terms until they reach 18. There are many bla bla bla acceptions to the word 'person', and you know it.

But the state is analogous to a corporation with shareholders. That's why we don't invite Europeans to vote on our laws, they aren't shareholders.

Fine then. It's a cooperative that you join by citizenship; therefore no one can ever have more than a single vote.

But the crumbs on your face show you've already begun nibbling.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Berzerker
It's the same principle, you don't ask people with no income taxes what the income tax rate should be...

So why set a minimum $2,000-3,000 benchmark?

And what about people who pay sales taxes? Don't they have a say?

Or how about people who do unpaid work, such as a housewife or someone who is retired?


Or how about someone who has worked and paid taxes for 20 years, but gets laid off, can't find work and doesn't pay income tax for a couple of years. Do they get to vote?

[Berzerker]

OB -

They aren't autonomous by legal bla bla terms until they reach 18. There are many bla bla bla acceptions to the word 'person', and you know it.

"Legal"? So one group of people decided another group of people shouldn'e be allowed to vote in violation of your 1 person = 1 vote? That happens to be what I advocate...

Fine then. It's a cooperative that you join by citizenship; therefore no one can ever have more than a single vote.

Not by citizenship, by ownership. And that means "owners", not non-owners, i.e., people who don't finance the state don't get to use the state to "tax" the people who do finance the state. You want a say, pony up the ante...

Tingkai -

So why set a minimum $2,000-3,000 benchmark?

Why not? Call it the price of admission into the owner's club.

And what about people who pay sales taxes? Don't they have a say?

Yup, they have a say in those rates.

Or how about people who do unpaid work, such as a housewife or someone who is retired?

Doesn't matter to me if they're paid or not, it's whether they pay taxes or not.

Or how about someone who has worked and paid taxes for 20 years, but gets laid off, can't find work and doesn't pay income tax for a couple of years. Do they get to vote?

That's right, once they stop paying income taxes they stop getting a say in what the rates should be.

[Zylka]

kuygk

[bipolarbear]

I bought a sweet-ass wooden sword this weekend.

What kind? Is it one of those wooden katanas?

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Why Government Grows

Originally posted by Berzerker
An informed electorate intent on fiscal restraint.

That won't work. People won't vote not to spend, they only vote to spend in their own area. Why do you think porkbarreling works?

Originally posted by Berzerker
Consider that the worst cars to buy are usually former rent-a-cars and you'll understand why private property is better than "communal" property in the long run and you'll understand why it is destructive to let people who pay no income taxes (or actually get "credits", i.e., welfare for working) vote on how much other people pay in taxes...

I don't see how this logic can work. People will vote to spend, as I point out before, in their own area. The tax money is already paid, so they will use it. They will also try to improve their own area, because of all this private property business.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
If you and your brother buy a computer and decide who gets to use it and when, you don't ask a bunch of people who didn't pitch in to buy the thing to help decide who gets to use it and when... It's the same principle, you don't ask people with no income taxes what the income tax rate should be...

Irrelevant. Nobody owns the money in the government's treasury.

[bipolarbear]

technically doesn't the govt. own the money in its treasury?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Berzerker
You want a say, pony up the ante...

So the people who don't pay taxes, don't get a say in the laws that affect their lives.

Interesting theory.

And if your neighbour buys a stereo and cranks up the music at 3am, you don't have a say because you didn't pay for it.

Interesting.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by bipolarbear
technically doesn't the govt. own the money in its treasury?

Yes, the government is not any individual, though.

[Berzerker]

UR -

Why do you think porkbarreling works?

Why do you think I ended that statement with ? That was a commentary on why government grows.

Irrelevant. Nobody owns the money in the government's treasury.

Umm...that's kind of the point, the people spending it don't view it as other people's property and that's why they are so profligate. So the answer is to allow the rightful owners of that money to set the tax rate thru voting. I'd further suggest that people who pay taxes should be allowed to earmark where their money goes instead of politicians. You want to support a drug war, pay for it with your own money. I often hear people who oppose abortion decry having to pay for them and I agree. Let the people who want federal funds for abortion pay for it themselves. Here's my money Mr Taxman and a list of what I want my money spent on...

Tingkai -

So the people who don't pay taxes, don't get a say in the laws that affect their lives.

Interesting theory.

No, they don't get a say in the tax rates if they don't pay the taxes.

And if your neighbour buys a stereo and cranks up the music at 3am, you don't have a say because you didn't pay for it.

Interesting.

I paid for my property and he is devaluing it by his behavior. For some reason you seem intent on avoiding my suggestions and instead want to explore tangential and off the wall "analogies", not interesting.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I paid for my property and he is devaluing it by his behavior. For some reason you seem intent on avoiding my suggestions and instead want to explore tangential and off the wall "analogies", not interesting.

Your property values are irrelevant.

You used the analogy that the only people who have a say on who can use something (a computer) are those who paid for it.

Now you're contradicting yourself by saying that even though you didn't pay for something (a stereo), you still get a say about how it is used.

Income taxes pay for government services. Those services affect everyone, including those who do not pay taxes.

[Cruddy]

If Bush really gives a toss about growing US defence expenditure...

... Why doesn't he donate - say a quarter - of the $200 million he's going to splurge on getting re-elected?

And his argument is so crass. Sure, Kerry didn't vote for the expenditure - but it's Bush who sent the troops into harms way, NOT Kerry.

Personally I agree with ousting Saddam after the shameful aftermath of '91 - I just wish a jackass wasn't in charge of the operation.

[Drake Tungsten]

What kind? Is it one of those wooden katanas?

Yeah.