Text 14156, 271 rader
Skriven 2007-05-07 21:53:44 av Josh Hill (526.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: unions
==================
On Sun, 6 May 2007 23:20:58 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Josh Hill wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 May 2007 18:18:33 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Josh Hill wrote:

>>>> On Sun, 6 May 2007 17:03:04 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:

>>> Third, you don't have a *personal* choice to murder, steal,  smoke,
>>> or fight in a war?  (Refraining from start-ass comment).   My
>>> comments have been almost exclusively geared towards personal rights
>>> and choices, no?
>>
>> No more than I have a personal choice not to pay taxes. Which is to
>> say that should I do or not do these things when the government tells
>> me otherwise, I'm in trouble -- same as I would be if I decided not to
>> pay my taxes.
>
>No, the government can't force you to murder.  Even in war...
>even when we had the draft there was always the status of
>moral objector.  That's as it should be... no one should be forced
>to do something they find immoral (as long as it does not
>violate the rights of others).

That's not quite true: not everyone can receive CO status. For
example, you're ineligible for CO status if you oppose a specific war,
but aren't a complete pacifist.

>Laws *should* be centered around preventing one person from
>violating the rights and safety of others, not compelling you to

That can't be, though. Someone has to pay for bridges.

>> My point is that we /have/ to do this: it's one of the primary
>> functions of government. Or do we want to live in a world in which
>> people are free to murder at will? It just can't be.
>
>See previous section as to where the primary line should be drawn.
>
>Of course there are exceptions, but they should be few and
>very far between.

There are lots of exceptions, I think. There have to be.

>>> 1) Taxes should be collected to pay for the services that government
>>> needs to provide.
>>
>> What is "needs"? Highways? Cancer research? Missiles? Education? The
>> space program? It's entirely subjective.
>
>Military? Absolutely. IT makes no sense to have a state-by-state militar=
y,
>plus trying to do so would create a situation where the federal governme=
nt
>doesn't control the military...and that would mean we would be essential=
ly
>a collection of 50 mini-countries.
>
>Highways?  In the absence of anything else to coordinate the constructio=
n
>so that they meet up.  Certainly they need to conform to a common
>set of standards.
>
>In that area though... why does Hawaii have an interstate highway?

Possibility A: It would unfair to give all the other states Federal
money for highways without giving Hawaii its cut

Possibility B: Amphicars

>Education?  It would be an interesting debate.  I doubt most would
>claim that the current system is an unqualified success.  Is there any=20
>reason
>states couldn't do it?

Couldn't do what?

>Space program?  There are military considerations that create an absolut=
e
>need.

Only for part of it.=20

>I'm personally a huge fan of NASA and all of the technological
>advances (most of which aren;t touted very well) that has come from it.
>
>As an investment, both in technology and as inspiration it has been mone=
y
>very well spent.

Ah, but now you're making my point for me, because /money well spent/
isn't the same as need.

The fact is, there are lots of things the Federal government does
because it /should,/ not because it has to. And people don't want to
give up those things. They don't even want to give up the things that
we shouldn't be paying for -- useless bring-home-the-bacon projects
that politicians use to buy votes.

>It will be interesting to see what evolves from the private sector.
>
>Where it makes sense and it can't be done by states or private
>industry, okay.  I usually have no problem.

Then we agree, except that I would say "and it can't be done /better/
by states or private industry." For example, the Republicans have
privatized a portion of Medicare. But the insurance companies are
charging /more/ for the services than it used to cost the government
to provide them. That's an example of a case in which private industry
shouldn't do the job, because government can do it better.

>>> 2) Taxes should not be used for social engineering .
>>>    (taking away from some because you think they make too much)
>>
>> You appear to be equating two entirely different concepts.
>
>Too long and detailed to go into tonight.
>Save it for another time.

OK, it's another time . . .
>>
>>
>>> 3) Taxes should not be based on "Take from the rich until it hurts
>>> them."
>>
>> I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Which makes it all the more
>> shameful, because that's pretty much the criterion we use for the
>> middle class.
>
>Actually, you have... more than once.

Never. I have often made the point that reasonable tax cut rollbacks
would /not/ hurt them. And I have repeatedly said that I'm not in
favor of confiscatory taxation.

>>> 4) I prefer that some set of guidelines are set such that "fair" is
>>> not "whatever I want to take."
>>
>> There can be no criterion for fairness here. Unfairness, perhaps.
>
>Unfair is subjective.
>
>Fair is treating everyone the same.

Not really. Because you can't treat everyone the same; it's just not
possible. Forex, if you charge a rich man $50 for a parking ticket and
a poor man $50 for a parking ticket, you aren't treating them the
same, because the $50 means nothing to the rich man, while for the
poor man it may mean that he can't afford his medication or can't pay
and has to go to jail.

>>> 5)     I prefer "rich" be specifically defined, rather than meaning
>>> different things when being discussed before the election (Bill
>>> Gates) and after the election (67K).   If you want to define it as a
>>> percentage of income in comparison to mean, that's fine, but then
>>> *always* reference that one definition, both in conversation and in
>>> tax law.
>>
>> That's like saying "big" should be specifically defined. It can't be:
>> it's a relative term.
>
>Bull.  If you're going to define laws...tax laws or any other kind of la=
ws,
>you should be able to do so unambiguosly.
>
>Tell me the absolute dollar figure that is the *defintion* of rich
>or you have no right to say that the rich don't pay their fair share.

Bullshit. There is no absolute dollar figure attached to any
definition of rich of which I'm aware: check the dictionary. It is not
my job to redefine the word any more than it's my job to say that
"high" is over 43.9 feet. Nor have I proposed some kind of sudden,
either/or cutoff in taxation. I've merely proposed that it be
progressive. Nor am I aware of any reasonable criterion of fairness
that might undergird an entire tax system.

>>> 6) I'd prefer a tax system that isn't so complex that it takes GE an
>>> army of accountants to produce a 24,000 page tax return.
>>
>> Sure. But good luck. And even if the tax system were vastly
>> simplified, GE would still produce a vast tax return, because it's a
>> vast company.
>
>Any sysytem that has the IRS tryng several times to rewrite the
>code to process it several times, over decades... and had them
>give up each time is a system that is out of control.
>
>Any tax system that can't be completely understood by the individual tha=
t
>has to pay those taxes is an abomination.

The government has a lousy record with large computer projects. And
there's no reason to think that an individual should understand our
entire tax code. We live in a complex, specialized society, and we
have specialized professionals -- accountants and economists -- to
deal with these issues.

Which isn't to say that I don't support tax simplification -- I do.
But there's a pig's chance in hell we'll get it, given that Congress,
corporations, and the public don't seem to want it. Everyone has his
finger in the pot.

>>> 7) I would prefer that the rich not pay significantly
>>> disproportionate taxes... because that encourages those that pay
>>> less to "load up" on new government spending because it seems
>>> relatively free to them.
>>
>> That last is most unfair, Carl. The poor and lower middle class groan
>> about the tax burden all the time, because they feel it in a way that
>> the rich do not.
>
>It's not unfair.  How often do you hear a politician say "I want to incr=
ease=20
>taxes on everyone so that we can have a new program?"  Doesn't happen mu=
ch.=20
>The reason that politicians don't define what rich is is that  it allows=
=20
>them to  imply "No, it's not you we want to tax... we're only talking ab=
out=20
>taxing Bill Gates."

Well, yes. But that's precisely what they want, the Democrats anyway.
And there are numbers attached to their proposals.

>Almost everyone groans about taxes.  You might not though. :)

I groan about everything boring -- and bookkeeping is /supremely/
boring.

>>> 8) Raising taxes should be considered the consequence of a failure
>>> of the government to control spending and should be a lst resort,
>>> not a first one.
>>
>> I don't agree. Oh, I'm not saying that the government should just
>> raise taxes for the hell of it. But there are valid arguments for
>> raising taxes as we become more prosperous.
>
>As we become more prosperous, the tax revenue increases by itself.
>
>We keep finding ways to overspend those increases though.
>
>Perhaps sometimes there might be cause for a new proigram...after=20
>significant public debate, however...please reference the 19 taxes that =
I=20
>listed the Dems want to add here in MN even though we have a 2.9 Billion=
=20
>dollar surplus.
>
>Oh yeah, I forgot to list one...they want to eliminate the deductions fo=
r=20
>kids if you make more than 50K.
>
>How do you justify those?

I don't. They sound like local issues, and they aren't local issues
with which I'm familiar.

--=20
Josh

"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths,
and how many, what day it=92s going to happen, and=20
how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean,
it=92s, it=92s not relevant. So, why should I waste my=20
beautiful mind on something like that?" - Barbara Bush
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)