Not really tuning in, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> gwhite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> I follow you. Taxes are to be blindly paid because you are morally
>>
>> superior to evil rich folks.
>
>
> Hmmm. I don't see where I said that.
"And I have always had trouble understanding why people making hundreds
of thousands of dollars per year need to pay less taxes."
"I'd think that people who had more money than they could ever hope of
spending in any reasonable way, and who had some sense of social
conscience, wouldn't care much about paying less taxes."
"But, as examples, I _always_ vote for school levies, library levies,
etc. These (and many others) are things I am happy to support with my
money."
[Funny, it's like a physical law for you. So "always" follow the
equation: "I _always_ vote..."]
"I'm aware, though, that we've had school levies defeated by the people
living in the McMansions out in what were recently cornfields. They
have enough money to buy those places (I don't) but they don't want to
give any of their money to the community."
> Well, why not be blunt about your opinion? Just tell us: do you think
> avarice _is_ moral? Don't be shy!
My personal opinion of one of the many vices isn't what I'm talking about.
>> The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
>> individual wealth (as the judgement goes).
>
> For me, those are parts of "the question."
Sure you do. That's how you justify sticking your hand in someone
else's pocket.
> Clearly, you care much more
> about other things - primarily, money in your pocket.
Yes. I have better things to do than glad-hand myself about how moral I
am while thinking of how rotten someone else more well off than I is,
and who lives out in the cornfield. I have better things to do than
moral grandstanding because they don't have pet socialist projects they
want to force everyone else to buy into where there is no market failure.
>> On the balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral
>> or not -- than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.
>
> I doubt there is any country on earth that does not "have a few filthy
> rich folks." So your fearsome armageddon of socialism ("Horrors! We
> won't have the rich!!") seems pretty unlikely.
You can thank capitalism and the market system for taming the beast.
Freedom is a delicate. It is certainly more important than a few
cornfield millionaires. Armageddon already happened. More than once.
Millions upon millions died.
You grossly misrepresent the point. There is no implied (or other)
appreciation in and of itself of anyone getting rich or of any
appreciation of unequal wealth distribution. Again, it is only a
tradeoff accepted that some fortunes will occur, when considering the
political economy as a whole. It isn't about perfection, it is about
avoiding something worse: concentration of power.
>> You are cracked.
>
> Gosh! I hadn't heard such a witty rebuke since grade 9!
Frank, again you misunderstand. I wasn't being witty.
>>> [fk:] Fine. But I don't think my kids and grandkids should be
>>> facing federal debt to help pay for Gates' mansion.
>
>> Give me a ****ing break...
>
> ... but I hear obscenity enough from other low lifes. No need to spew
> more.
Okay, let me put it the old way: You are cracked.
>> You could confiscate all his wealth and not put a dent in the debt.
>> And by the way, it isn't your kids and grandkids money that is paying
>> for the mansion, it is his money. Preposterous!
>
> To spell it out more slowly for you:
>
> Bush's tax cuts went predominanly to Gates and other super-rich.
Who is talking about Bill Gates taxes or George Bush's tax cuts?
> Partly as a result of those tax cuts,
> the federal deficity soared.
Of course, politicians can't control themselves, which is why I say to
take them out of the picture as much as possible and not to blindly pay
taxes. Sure, Washington spending should be cut, so the current deficit
is smaller. (It is normal to run a deficit in wartime.)
The downsizing won't happen though if we keep voting for tweedledee or
tweedledum. Like David Stockman said "sacred cows run in herds."
> It will
> have to be repaid.
I'm surprised you finally nailed one. Horray for Frank!
> In other words, part of the money Gates lavished on his self-cleaning
> bathrooms will ultimately be paid to the government by us, and by our kids.
What a crock. It isn't *your* money Frank. Get that through your
noggin. If you are so high and mighty, and have all the good ideas, why
not test them in the real world by _making your own money_ and putting
it wherever you please? You can't. Why get your own money when you can
simply confiscate someone elses?
>>> [fk:] [You seem] to say that paying taxes ranks close to murder.
>>
>> It causes a concentration of power.
>
> Then you really _do_ believe paying (at least certain) taxes is nearly
> as bad as murder??
I believe that people of good will can unwittingly set the stage for
persons of a different type.
"We enter parliament in order to supply ourselves, in the arsenal of
democracy, with its own weapons. . . . If democracy is so stupid as to
give us free tickets and salaries for this bear's work, that is its
affair. . . . We do not come as friends, nor even as neutrals. We come
as enemies. As the wolf bursts into the flock, so we come."
-- Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945), German Nazi leader, minister of
propaganda. Der Angriff (Berlin, 30 April 1928).
Freedom is a delicate.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
-- Thomas Jefferson
> > I'm not saying there are no
>
>> justifiable taxes, there are. My point is that one tactically avoids
>> concentration of power as much as possible.
>
> That's libertarian nonsense. There will _always_ be concentration of
> power. Absent government intervention, power will become concentrated
> in those most inclined to violence, and those with the largest amounts
> of money.
You are ignorant. No one remotely stated that government and the rule
of law ("Absent government intervention") should "disappear." No one
has remotely proposed anarchy.
> In a short time, those two groups will become one, and will
> exercise absolute power. Think of organized crime, for example - and
> think of the Mafia running the country.
tap...tap...tap...twiddle...twiddle...twiddle
> One main purpose of representative government is to prevent such
> dominance by a few. It's not perfect, of course, but I think most
> people would rather have a reasonable tax burden used to support, say,
> the police and the FBI, rather than turning the country over to the
> likes of Al Capone.
Thanks for making that quick.
>> You are off your rocker. You believe they somehow escape property
>> taxes, income taxes, sales taxes,... etcetera? LOL.
>
>
> There have been several studies that have shown that expansionist
> developments like the ones I described are a net drain on a community
> budget. The extension of infrastructure, the increased road
> maintenance, the generation of the need for new or larger school
> buildings, the need for more safety forces and law enforcement
> personnel, all make these things money losers.
LOL. Maybe they are "money losers." Maybe just like when the community
built that infrastructure that supports the house you live in all those
years ago.
Of course, once one group "gets theirs," they want to lock out the same
benefit to others. Corruption is rampant. So the solution is: get the
goverment out of as much of that infrastructure business as possible.
Let *you* pay for the road to your house. Let the cornfield
millionaires pay for the road to their house. Let *you* pay for the cop
in your town. Let the cornfield millionaires pay for the cop in the
cornfield.
I'm all for folks paying for their own stuff, including you. Gosh,
you're almost suggesting people should pay for what they get. I think
we have a natal libertarian on our hands.
> Simultaneously, they
> lower the desirability of housing in most American city centers, and
> thereby produce negative effects in those older neighborhoods and inner
> suburbs.
Crock. They didn't "cause" the undesireability of any existing housing.
Its undesireability is why they didn't go there in the first place.
> So, in effect, they pay some taxes, but they don't pay their way.
I doubt you paid your way either when they built your street.
> And again, they've refused to help with even
> local school levies on several occasions.
So what if they did? Maybe they have a good reason.
These "horrible rich folks" were probably doing the most moral thing
possible in resisting more levies for the public school monolith: caring
about the education of our children. And you condemn them for it.
>> Your confiscatory statements can be characterized classic socialist.
>
> It seems clear to me that this is a question of perspective.
It really isn't.
> The last time I took a survey on
> my economic views, I placed quite close to the
> nation's center.
No ****. That only says there are a lot of people whose beliefs have
roots in socialist ideology. Don't waste time denying it. Use your
time justifying it: it is your belief system!
> Doubtlessly, you would place at the extreme
> libertarian edge.
LOL.
http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/1976/index.html
http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/1974/index.html
Your argument is not appeal to authority, but to run-of-the-mill
commonality. "Lots of other folks believe it, so it is therefore
correct." So when you grade student's papers you simply call out the
correct answer as the most common one. No wonder the cornfield
millionaires don't want to pay more levies for public schools.
> From your viewpoint, Attila the Hun would probably
> look like a socialist!`
> You've found a simple ideology that you can totally embrace. In a way,
> that's enviable. It's going to save you lots of headaches - the kind
> that come from hard thinking.
>
> So I won't try to convert you to any rational position.
>
> It would be a
> waste of time, and perhaps a little cruel. You know, similar to
> throwing a non-swimmer into deep water.
>
> Any future responses will actually be written for the amusement of other
> readers, if any. And I'll try to keep those to a minimum.
Frank, I don't give a **** what you decide to do, one way or the other.
