You think you are paying high taxes? Think again...

[Darth Crater]

First of all, anyone can donate to build roads. Second of all, if people share resources there is no reason to work 16 hour a day jobs. Third, government are cartels, warlords and occupiers.

People can contribute to infrastructure. But they won't. Basic game theory - to understand why it won't work, look at the Prisoner's Dilemma and the Tragedy of the Commons. Each individual benefits more if they don't pay into infrastructure - after all, their money won't make much difference, and they have lots of other things to spend it on. However, everyone will do this same cost-benefit calculation, and nobody will actually choose to pay in. Disaster. The same logic applies to a surprising number of fields - the military, for example, could not be funded by volunteers.

If you look at the math for the Tragedy of the Commons, it turns out that the best way to make everyone cooperate (pay for infrastructure) is to make the alternative worse. In other words, by enforcing taxation, the government changes the nature of the game. Dodging taxes is punished, so people pay into the system, and get their infrastructure. Taxation is accepted because, for all its inefficiencies, it gets things done. Things which we need, and which are to our long-term benefit, but which we could never accomplish in a vacuum.

I don't agree with you about the dominant model in an absence of government. You seem to be assuming that without government intervention, society defaults to something resembling "voluntary collectivism." To me it seems that a more likely option would be "predatory capitalism." Without regulation, it's easy for the wealthy and powerful to set up systems resembling slavery or serfdom. The government guarantees you a number of rights and protections that you've probably never thought about, but rely on every day.

I'm not bothering to contest your definitions about government. Let me just say our "formal" government is charged with serving the people (see: preamble of the Constitution). And while it's hardly perfect, we do our best to elect people who keep that mission in mind. Hardly the same as, say, a Colombian cartel - their explicit purpose is to benefit a group of elites at the expense of everyone else.

[Duel of Fates]

Ok, which way do you want it Crater? Seems to be all or nothing with you. Limited government, is not No government. We are not advocating anarchy and the nightmare situation you have jumped to. We are asking for less government intervention, intrusion, and invasion of our lives. We are asking for a president and congress to uphold all laws equally, not just the ones they like. We are asking for a congress that doesn't spend more than is taken in. We are asking for the government to get out of the way and let true capitalism grow. You know? The same capitalism that created a Super Power from a third world colony. We want the Constitution upheld and not trampled on.

The government guarantees you a number of rights and protections that you've probably never thought about, but rely on every day. No Crater. Many of us do think about that everyday, and rail against the loss of our Liberties every chance we can.

I'm not bothering to contest your definitions about government. Let me just say our "formal" government is charged with serving the people (see: preamble of the Constitution). And while it's hardly perfect, we do our best to elect people who keep that mission in mind.

Up until now, you have consistently made the argument that the Constitution was an out dated concept. An impediment for the centralized Big Brother kind of government you seek, which cannot succeed unless it destroys the principles and rights of the people contained in that document. Obama had it partially right when he stated that the Constitution was a list of negative Liberties. It tells us what the Government shall "NOT" do to its citizens.

Now you wish to hold the Constitution up as an argument to ward off anarchy? But only if we let fear grip us and keep our Big Government to keep us safe and warm, right? We need more socialists elected, that would make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

[Darth Crater]

Ok, which way do you want it Crater? Seems to be all or nothing with you. Limited government, is not No government. We are not advocating anarchy and the nightmare situation you have jumped to. We are asking for less government intervention, intrusion, and invasion of our lives.

Sorry, Duel, I was not talking to you with that post. I was specifically arguing against the idea that taxes are always harmful thievery. I recognize that you are not and have never been promoting that idea.

Up until now, you have consistently made the argument that the Constitution was an out dated concept. An impediment for the centralized Big Brother kind of government you seek, which cannot succeed unless it destroys the principles and rights of the people contained in that document. Obama had it partially right when he stated that the Constitution was a list of negative Liberties. It tells us what the Government shall "NOT" do to its citizens.

Now you wish to hold the Constitution up as an argument to ward off anarchy? But only if we let fear grip us and keep our Big Government to keep us safe and warm, right? We need more socialists elected, that would make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

I think you're putting words in my mouth here. I believe that sections of the Constitution are outdated. That doesn't invalidate the whole thing - it's done a lot of good. For all my complaints about the system, I recognize that it could easily be far worse.

The Constitution includes an explicit mechanism for changing itself to make sure that it doesn't conflict with its intent - to make life better for all of us. And that, in my opinion, is the only possible purpose of a government - make life better. I realize that we have different opinions on how the government can do that (neither of which honestly matter too much, since neither of us has the education to run a country). I'm not trying to get into another argument about that, here.

[WD-40]

Personally, I'm a believer in Reagan's philosophy, where the less Federal Government intervenes in the business and lives of the People, the better. Obviously, I cannot speak of what exactly the Founding Fathers intended for the Nation and Governments role in it, but I believe it was along those lines. The Fed is supposed to be an 'overseer' and only intervene where all (50) states and the territories cannot reach an equal and fair result (when prudent to do so) and maintain a National Defense. Every State should have as much control as possible, and a flat tax of 10 or 15% isn't too unreasonable for Federal taxes provided we downsize DC and it's involvement in our lives considerably. Good luck with that, since DC is crawling with selfish and power hungry opportunists.

[CommanderOtto]

[

yeah but Duel, although everyone looses if grades are redistributed, it isn't that simple in the economy. If the lower sectors of the population are doing very badly in income through time, then that means social mobility decreases, racial problems increase, health problems increase, and the economy is weakened as people cannot afford buying things like they used to... and then companies loose money, unemployment increases...

Hey Otto, some of us working stiffs that sweat our balls off trying to keep a roof over our kids heads, keep the family fed, and saving whatever and where ever we can are getting tired of the government taking our money, money that we earned with sweat and sometimes blood. I see how the real world works. I am grinding out the hours working my ass off and dealing with those "poor" souls who have to live on welfare, food stamps, social security disabilities, etc. when they get there welfare checks on the first of the month and head to the casino and blow their money playing the slots or losing it on the tables. They have their iphones, ipads, blue tooth phone sets. They blow hundreds of dollars, but they don't have enough money to buy food for their children? How do I sign up for that [poo]? When the government makes it easier for people to get on welfare, and to stay on welfare, there is no incentive to find a job and earn a living.

I tell you this, if I didn't pay taxes on my income, on the hours that I work, I would be much better off. I could afford to buy things for my family, I could afford healthcare, and my social mobility would increase. If I buy more things, that is good for the economy, because the stores make money, and the people who make those items earn a living. But no, I give it to the government in the form of taxes so Jamal and Rufus can sit on their asses watching nice big screen tvs. You want to get people off welfare? Quit paying them to sit on their asses.

It also irks me some that the government can find new ways to blow money out their asses. Just look at how much it cost to set up the Healthcare website. What a [m'kay] joke. Look at the IRS budget. They have over a Billion dollars budgeted for their IT department, and they cannot recover lost emails from a hardrive crash? I could go on, but just got done with my shift where a percentage of my toil goes to this kind of [poo]. Sorry if I seem pissed. The real world is not found on graphs, and text books. Its a lot messier, and noble ideas are left by the wayside.

I want to do my share, pay my taxes, live comfortably and provide for my family. I do not want to see the government waste my hard earned dollars on corruption, unwise spending, and frivolous pork barrel spending. If everyone ran their households like the government runs itself, everyone would be broke too, spending what you do not have, on [poo] you do not need, to impress people you do not like. I am all for fair taxation, just not blindly giving it to politicians so they can waste it and spend more than they have.

hey, I agree with you, I don't like waste either. The healthcare website is a great example of massive waste and incompetence. However, even you said it yourself. Things aren't so simple as we would like them to be. Lower taxes does not mean everyone simply buys more and create more jobs. This is the problem. Sure, there is a lot of waste, but the solution to that is to prosecuting those people who steal from the government, not eliminating social security or medicare altogether. I know you didn't mention that, but I imagine that is where you are getting at? Your future when you retire is going to be much worse than those of your parents who have retired long ago. I am much younger than you, and my future will be a thousand times worse than yours (if you think your future is bad, I can only imagine mine). Grandparents today live a good healthy and quiet life with their social security and medicare. When I retire a decades from now, I want that too. And unfortunately, there are only two exits for the social security problem. Higher taxes or no social security. It's not robbery as some say... it is saving for the future, just like your parents paid taxes and now enjoy the benefits of their work with their current medicare/social security. I prefer to pay a bit more. And I know you said you prefer to pay your fair share as well.... if only everyone thought like that. But as I said, if there is waste, if there are people abusing the system and not working for the money, then law reform has to take place to eliminate the waste, not eliminate the things that make this government good.

[(SWGO)DesertEagle]

Otto, there is not going to be any social security by the time you are ready to receive it. It's not even going to last for the baby boomers.

I object to being forced to save for retirement "the government's way." Let me do it my own way thank you, I can raid my own funds, not you.

There is no "right to pension."

[CommanderOtto]

then you are going to be doomed to a very bad retirement. Financial institutions disappear through the years, government stays. Besides, I have never been in any country where there is not a social security of any kind. That comment "there is no right to pension" is patriotic religiousness... not common sense well-being or economics. Oh, if that is the case, then we shouldn't have police (no "right to have police to save you"), then we shouldn't have roads (I don't see the declaration of independence say "right to good roads"), or maybe we shouldn't have any schools either (no "right to education" right?). For some reason all civilized nations have social security of some kind.

and you are claiming that all the elderly today are raiding social security? What kind of madness is that? sure there are some people who deserve to go to jail for stealing from it, but not everyone is a thief. Not to mention, without the social security and medicare to protect the old people, that means you will have to pay the medical bills of your parents once their savings are wiped out by a heart surgery or a hip replacement. Here in the U.S it only takes one trip to the hospital for a severe injury/illness and you are bankrupt. Imagining you do not have social security and medicare, and imagining you already went broke to take care of your parents, you will have little chance of saving for your retirement after your parents pass away, because you already put everything you had taking care of them. You could try saving by yourself and maybe you could become rich and not worry about it, but with rising inequality, decreasing social mobility, financial instability, and rising healthcare costs, and rising costs of education, you cannot escape the statistics of slightly more than half of americans being poor after the age of 65 (by sometime around 2030), while today only about 10% of elderly are poor. Good luck to you, and to me.

[Duel of Fates]

hey, I agree with you, I don't like waste either. The healthcare website is a great example of massive waste and incompetence. However, even you said it yourself. Things aren't so simple as we would like them to be. Lower taxes does not mean everyone simply buys more and create more jobs. This is the problem. Sure, there is a lot of waste, but the solution to that is to prosecuting those people who steal from the government, (which costs billions of $ the gov got from us, with no real solution to the problem)not eliminating social security or medicare altogether. I know you didn't mention that, but I imagine that is where you are getting at?(Of course.) Your future when you retire is going to be much worse than those of your parents who have retired long ago. I am much younger than you, and my future will be a thousand times worse than yours (if you think your future is bad, I can only imagine mine). Grandparents today live a good healthy and quiet life with their social security and medicare. When I retire a decades from now, I want that too. And unfortunately, there are only two exits for the social security problem. Higher taxes or no social security. It's not robbery as some say... it is saving for the future, (I can save for my own future, much better than giving it to the government, hoping they don't spend it all before I get "my share")just like your parents paid taxes and now enjoy the benefits of their work with their current medicare/social security. I prefer to pay a bit more. And I know you said you prefer to pay your fair share as well.... if only everyone thought like that. But as I said, if there is waste, if there are people abusing the system and not working for the money, then law reform has to take place to eliminate the waste, not eliminate the things that make this government good.

Actually Otto, it is that easy. Let go of the notion that the government is the "great benefactor". It is not. Get past the idea that you cannot survive without the government intrusion into your daily life. You can.

I am not for "no government", I am for a limited government. I am a strong believer in self reliance and the ability for the individual to make decisions for themselves . Not quite sure why Liberals are afraid of independence, liberty, freedom of choice and smaller government.

For those of you out there that get it,


Happy Independence Day!

[Duel of Fates]

then you are going to be doomed to a very bad retirement. Financial institutions disappear through the years, government stays. Besides, I have never been in any country where there is not a social security of any kind. That comment "there is no right to pension" is patriotic religiousness... not common sense well-being or economics. Oh, if that is the case, then we shouldn't have police (no "right to have police to save you"), then we shouldn't have roads (I don't see the declaration of independence say "right to good roads"), or maybe we shouldn't have any schools either (no "right to education" right?). For some reason all civilized nations have social security of some kind.

and you are claiming that all the elderly today are raiding social security? What kind of madness is that? sure there are some people who deserve to go to jail for stealing from it, but not everyone is a thief.

See otto, you are falling into the same line of thinking. It is all or nothing. Big Government, or no government.

[CommanderOtto]

well it's your opinion, I respect that.