1277 replies to this topic

[Skiptastic]

donald can go ahead and end this thread if he so likes, but better to give an outlet for discussion that isn't 11:60 or people talking about health care or whatever.

I liked my old post so much, I bought the company pasted it here for more discussion.

You can't simplify taxes as being a "membership fee" because not everyone pays taxes. And I'm not even talking about people that are poor or make little, I'm talking about people who may be able to completely live independently. If I had a small farm and did not have to engage in selling crops for income, I wouldn't pay taxes. Why? Because I'm not interacting with the society as a whole. Taxes are the costs of doing business with a society. The government takes on costs to create a workable infrastructure for a society, and when you do business therein, you help pay the costs of that society.

If the society decides that every member should have health care and enacts laws to do so, well, then they have changed the rules of their infrastructure. One can disagree or agree with it, but the rules have changed so the costs change as well. I don't look at it as stealing, because it is simply an added cost of doing business in the society. Most people will find that their fortunes are better when they do business in the society, so guess what? You have to pay those costs. I don't see that as a morality play, it's business, and the business of America is business.

I can see the issue where the government requires people to do business in the society via forcing health insurance costs onto its citizens, but if you don't pay income taxes because you're self sustaining, they'll never be able to enforce that law, so it doesn't apply. If you're not living "off the grid", however, what it becomes is essentially changing the pre-requisites for doing business in the society.

I'm sorry if you don't think that there are costs of creating a societal infrastructure, but there are. Taxes are going to happen. We can agree or disagree on to what degree they should happen, how they should be applied, and so forth. But if you believe that taxes are the government stealing from you regardless, then I do not believe there is a rational argument to be had.

(BTW, you could get rid of a lot of this whole "stealing" business if you had some sort of built in federal tax on everything purchased and basically dissolve the IRS. But then you'd be paying much more for the stuff you buy, and you'd get people pissed off in that regard as well. There really is no winning.)

Discuss at your leisure.

[DoctorShumway]

I liked your post. I nodded as I read it.

[cetera]

thread title ++++++++++

as for governMENt
BAH, u gotta fuck the face 1st!!
bye

[Shoe]

thread title ++++++++++

as for governMENt
BAH, u gotta fuck the face 1st!!
bye

Stop quoting that.


I have to watch it every time you do.

[donald]

it's all good

[FoxxDragon]

Since the other thread got locked, I wanted to say thanks to the other guys who held it as a rational discussion for so long. I was actually the only political discussion thread I've ever seen online- on a non poltical board, not end up locked.

Had a good run, and I enjoyed reading it. thanks

[Skiptastic]

Skip, allow me to do to you what you're doing to me:

There is no debate to be had because your argument lacks foundation of reason. We must start with what I believe, and not debate on the underlying assumptions, because that delves into what you believe, which is something we can't debate, because it has no foundation of reason. Debating what I believe would be reasonable, but debating what you believe is not.

Or, you could just disagree, and back up what you say. What's so unreasonable about that?

Continuing the discussion here....

What is the foundation of reason lacking in my argument? If we start with what you believe, conversation ends, because if you will not allow yourself to be convinced that taxes are anything other than stealing, you cannot have a reasonable debate on items stemming from that topic. You can't talk about how much someone should be taxed, because being taxed is wrong. You can't talk about what taxes should cover, because being taxed is wrong. You can't talk about the way taxes should be implemented, because being taxed is wrong. Conversation stops entirely.

If you want to postulate that taxes for health care is wrong and "stealing", perhaps we can move forward. That's a debatable point. Gets into the reach of government (both federal and state), covers societal beliefs of what is morally right, and so on. But you've entered the territory of utter ignorance, and you've seen the ramifications. There's no underlying assumptions. All debate is predicated on there being some sort of mutual understanding of the topic. Your understanding of taxes cannot coexist with the debate.

[Rize]

good riddance

[Eric Dude]

good riddance

Not really. I feel like he's going to find ways to just ruin other threads with his assholery. Not sure why skip even wants to engage in discourse with the kid.

Sorry, I'll leave this thread alone now. Even though I'll likely have to stare at it being on the top page for the next week or so.

[Skiptastic]

Not really. I feel like he's going to find ways to just ruin other threads with his assholery. Not sure why skip even wants to engage in discourse with the kid.

I believe in Sisyphus.

[Eric Dude]

Not really. I feel like he's going to find ways to just ruin other threads with his assholery. Not sure why skip even wants to engage in discourse with the kid.

I believe in Sisyphus.

I won't lie, I had to google that.

Yeah, I remember that guy now. Good luck!

[zyko]

i want to point out that i didn't mean to imply that taxes are like membership fees as an all encompassing analogy. it was particularly generalized. clearly there are obvious differences but the premise is the same: the little league cannot run without the fees... it needs the funds to operate. the nation also needs tax income to operate which is also why the government takes it so seriously when you don't pay up. an alternative to taxation has not appeared to effectively fund the high operating costs of social infrastructure in a 1st world nation.

[WoWzers]

I believe in Sisyphus.

As do I, Skiptastic. A great myth. He gave it all for one last chance at life, because what else is there?

Keemt here. Donald killed my account. If anyone thinks what people say about me is true, all they have to do is read the last pages of the health care thread. I threw in more facts than anyone, and used socratic dialogue (which started Western Civilization) to question people's points, and provide my own. I didn't throw in cheap jokes, or make a quick comment. I read what people said and answered them about the topic. People can't disagree here without being children. You all want me to say things lightly instead of assertively, as if you can't just disagree like a man and state your opposing view. I think that's a shame, but it's something I don't have to care about. I will remind all of us that Socrates was forced to kill himself.

To the point, Skip, I'll finish my time here with the basics:

Theft is taking something against another's will. When a man comes up to someone, says give me your money, and then then takes it as the person refuses, that is theft.

Let's call this theif "Agent #43022." He comes to someone's door, and gives them a letter saying his bank account is frozen. The IRS then takes his money.

How is this not stealing?

It doesn't matter what it's for. It doesn't matter if people voted for it. If you didn't volunteer your money to be used, it's theft by force.

[Corax]

I didn't throw in cheap jokes, or make a quick comment. I read what people said and answered them about the topic.

I don't remember you giving me that respect, Keemt.


Remember this?

Yeah I know what you mean, I should start a new rule of looking ages up before talking, and not arguing with 17 year olds. I've actually been studying this whole time, and because you wasted my time, I've been just randomly saying fluff that sounds like what people have said to me. I haven't read your posts in pages, and I still answered you better than people have answered me.

rofl

Ah yes. I remember that, for sure.


donald was away for a bit, but I'm fairly certain he didn't just use the last couple pages of that thread as basis for banning or locking.

And what you're doing, creating a new account after losing another, is warrant for an IP ban dude.



EDIT: perhaps I'm throwing myself out on the line here by looking at this emotionally. But whatever, I can handle feeling like crap for awhile so long as I get this stuff off my chest.

[Eric Dude]

I believe in Sisyphus.

Keemt here. Donald killed my account. If anyone thinks what people say about me is true, all they have to do is read the last pages of the health care thread. I threw in more facts than anyone, and used socratic dialogue

Man, at first, I seriously read that as "sarcastic dialogue", and thought for a moment that Keemt was being straight with us. No such luck.