Tell HN: Vote.
44 comments
Find me one candidate that isn't completely full of s&%t, and maybe I'll cast a vote. Maybe one person that understands English enough to actually answer a question in front of a camera. It's insulting.
90% of the population doesn't have a single clue about how the government runs, anything about the economy, foreign relations, what any of the candidates are even speaking about. It's a population voting blindly based on which TV shows and commercials they happen to watch. We have states that practically automatically turn towards a certain party each time. An electoral college system makes all of the difference. Overfunded campaigns that buy your vote like big companies sell you their garbage. It's a mess..
90% of the population doesn't have a single clue about how the government runs, anything about the economy, foreign relations, what any of the candidates are even speaking about. It's a population voting blindly based on which TV shows and commercials they happen to watch. We have states that practically automatically turn towards a certain party each time. An electoral college system makes all of the difference. Overfunded campaigns that buy your vote like big companies sell you their garbage. It's a mess..
So get off your ass and participate. If you're so smart help 4 or 5 people understand the issues. Encourage your friends and family to read, learn and think about the issues before voting. Don't just throw up your hands and say the system is broken; help fix it!
1) I'm not that smart politically - at least I can admit it. 2) Did you only read one sentence in my post before commenting?
Yes, and every single one of them is a typical cliche "politics is so disgusting, I won't even vote" line that is so typical these days.
I do not encourage people to vote. If you do not feel strongly to vote, thank you for making my vote count for more.
I do not encourage people to vote. If you do not feel strongly to vote, thank you for making my vote count for more.
The best part about the elections is that voters GET an education about the issues by hearing the candidates. The education may be biased or somewhat untruthful, but elections actually let everyone know about the issues facing the country. I say that they make the populace much more informed!
So don't vote for a major party or write someone in. If you don't vote, don't complain.
If you vote for someone that fucks you over, THEN you can't complain. After all, you voted for him.
Non-voters have every right to complain.
Non-voters have every right to complain.
On the contrary - if you vote for someone and then they go back on their word and fuck you over, you have every right to complain - the candidate committed what is essentially fraud, by bait-and-switching you on policy.
Non-voters have every legal right to complain (guaranteed by the First Amendment), but IMHO do not have a moral right to do so. You refused to take part in the process, how can you complain about its results? Even if you tried in vain and failed, at least you cared enough to toss a piece of paper into a box. If you don't like any of the candidates, write someone in, or, cast an objection/blank ballot. Believe it or not, people DO track these stats, and casting a blank ballot gets you counted in the turnout totals, and would be mighty embarrassing if the winner won without even a majority.
Non-voters have every legal right to complain (guaranteed by the First Amendment), but IMHO do not have a moral right to do so. You refused to take part in the process, how can you complain about its results? Even if you tried in vain and failed, at least you cared enough to toss a piece of paper into a box. If you don't like any of the candidates, write someone in, or, cast an objection/blank ballot. Believe it or not, people DO track these stats, and casting a blank ballot gets you counted in the turnout totals, and would be mighty embarrassing if the winner won without even a majority.
Would you like to get shot in the head, or stabbed in the back?
This is what I think of when I hear "don't vote, don't complain."
This is what I think of when I hear "don't vote, don't complain."
How is that even remotely a valid response to that? Explain to me how you justify the attitude that not voting somehow means any of the rest of us should give a flying fuck about any problems you may have with the government?
I thought it was crystal clear in the fewest number of words. I guess not...
You don't have to "give a flying fuck" at all. But I don't think that, by not voting, someone's complaints are rendered void.
You don't have to "give a flying fuck" at all. But I don't think that, by not voting, someone's complaints are rendered void.
Why? You couldn't find a single person among the 8 or so that are running for president you agreed with? Who isn't represented by a 3rd party - there is everything from libertarian to communist running on the ballot. Look beyond the front 2 parties if you don't like them.
Do you have the impression I'm not voting, or that I'm only considering the major parties?
You and BigZaphod have a problem with addressing my point, that one isn't required to vote in order to voice a complaint about the election/candidates/government/whatever.
You and BigZaphod have a problem with addressing my point, that one isn't required to vote in order to voice a complaint about the election/candidates/government/whatever.
I have the impression that you are pompous and lazy. I'm driving 500 miles round trip to vote tomorrow. One of my room mates can vote 10 minutes away and he isn't voting. He agrees with Obama but he "knows he will win so why bother". To me it is a sign of disrespect to those who have died for the right to vote in this country, as well as a sign of personal laziness.
In your case you seem unhappy with the choices presented, not the idea of voting. So I'm saying, there are many choices there and I can't see how you can't pick the one closest to your views.
As for if you should have the right to voice a complaint. Well if you can't find a single party worth voting for, then you obviously have either a strong opinion that differs or a very weak opinion. If you have a weak opionon, then STFU. If you have a strong opinion that differs with every party such that you can not vote for a single one, but don't run for office yourself, well then you have no grounds on which to complain because once again, you are just being lazy in not running. Most of the 3rd party candidates aren't even running full time campaigns, but there is no reason you couldn't run.
Seriously, if NJ Weedman can get a bunch of signatures and get on the ballot for his ideas, so can you. So not doing that, or not finding at least ONE party worth voting for says to me you are simply lazy or trying really hard to be a contrarian. Either one makes me contemptuous.
In your case you seem unhappy with the choices presented, not the idea of voting. So I'm saying, there are many choices there and I can't see how you can't pick the one closest to your views.
As for if you should have the right to voice a complaint. Well if you can't find a single party worth voting for, then you obviously have either a strong opinion that differs or a very weak opinion. If you have a weak opionon, then STFU. If you have a strong opinion that differs with every party such that you can not vote for a single one, but don't run for office yourself, well then you have no grounds on which to complain because once again, you are just being lazy in not running. Most of the 3rd party candidates aren't even running full time campaigns, but there is no reason you couldn't run.
Seriously, if NJ Weedman can get a bunch of signatures and get on the ballot for his ideas, so can you. So not doing that, or not finding at least ONE party worth voting for says to me you are simply lazy or trying really hard to be a contrarian. Either one makes me contemptuous.
That first paragraph was interesting. I am pompous and lazy, but that's irrelevant. Your friend made a smart decision, but that is also irrelevant.
I'll tell you a little story though. When I was in Basic, there was a time when all the trainees were gathered in the church, roughly 2,000 of us (nothing religious, just used because it was big enough to accommodate everyone). We were asked why we enlisted. Only a handful raised their hand who thought it was their "patriotic duty." After college, I will probably go into the Special Forces. Not for any patriotic fluff, but for the challenge, adventure, and to save people. So you shouldn't feel such a burden unless you live in a swing state. Voting for a third party is a symbolic gesture, but so is not voting at all. FWIW, I'm voting for Nader tomorrow morning.
The rest of your comment is ridiculous and should be read aloud before submitting
and proof that politics should be banned from news.yc.
I'll tell you a little story though. When I was in Basic, there was a time when all the trainees were gathered in the church, roughly 2,000 of us (nothing religious, just used because it was big enough to accommodate everyone). We were asked why we enlisted. Only a handful raised their hand who thought it was their "patriotic duty." After college, I will probably go into the Special Forces. Not for any patriotic fluff, but for the challenge, adventure, and to save people. So you shouldn't feel such a burden unless you live in a swing state. Voting for a third party is a symbolic gesture, but so is not voting at all. FWIW, I'm voting for Nader tomorrow morning.
The rest of your comment is ridiculous and should be read aloud before submitting
and proof that politics should be banned from news.yc.
Why?
Someone's actions, or lack thereof, do not necessarily mean that their points are invalid. It does allow you to create a moral judgment of them, but that does not mean that they can not make a poignant criticism of a political and social situation that they've been living under.
Disregarding the commentary because of the actions of the commenter doesn't make much sense to me, at least not in this particular situation.
Someone's actions, or lack thereof, do not necessarily mean that their points are invalid. It does allow you to create a moral judgment of them, but that does not mean that they can not make a poignant criticism of a political and social situation that they've been living under.
Disregarding the commentary because of the actions of the commenter doesn't make much sense to me, at least not in this particular situation.
[deleted]
Yea, that makes sense. Not too good at math?
His name is Michael Badarnik, and unfortunately he was the Libertarian presidential candidate in 2004. I watched a 8 hour lecture he gave on the legal aspects of the constitution. How many candidates can claim to be able to do that?
[deleted]
It's not just about the presidential election. Perhaps the greatest impact a voter has is on his local community/state. Here in California, our referendums have far-reaching consequences. Too much emphasis is placed on the presidential election.
+ idiots who think their campaign 'promises' we all be passed and implemented by Nov. 5th
No more election news after tomorrow, yay!
No, that's when the retrospective "This is how [Obama|McCain] won" articles start about who was best organized, who used technology best, etc :)
"How McCain/Palin stole the presidency even though they lost"
Oh give it a rest.
You don't think that's a possible outcome given the last couple of elections? :/
There will be rioting in the streets if there is an upset.
Surely nothing as bad as the rioting of 2000 after that election was stolen? just sayin' ;)
No, much worse than the small disturbance of 2000.
Compare the graphs here ( http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/ec_graph-2008.html ), particularly the ones that leave out the "barely" states.
People are much less politically apathetic in the US than they were in 2000, and I'd bet money on a serious people-dying riot in the case of another shady election deal. The 2000 elections were close enough to fudge, this was a landslide.
I can't remember another time in my life where a lot of people were overcome with emotion to the point of tears at the result of an election in the US.
Compare the graphs here ( http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/ec_graph-2008.html ), particularly the ones that leave out the "barely" states.
People are much less politically apathetic in the US than they were in 2000, and I'd bet money on a serious people-dying riot in the case of another shady election deal. The 2000 elections were close enough to fudge, this was a landslide.
I can't remember another time in my life where a lot of people were overcome with emotion to the point of tears at the result of an election in the US.
If I ran a newspaper, I'd have both articles already written, so I could hit the press as soon as the result was confirmed...
I promise you that everyone who actually does write a newspaper already does. They do that with sports or just about anything that runs late at night but needs to be printed early.
You may have seen an example of this happening recently when Bloomberg killed off Steve Jobs:
http://gawker.com/5042795/bloomberg-runs-steve-jobs-obituary
http://gawker.com/5042795/bloomberg-runs-steve-jobs-obituary
"dewey defeats truman!"
As some people have said to me (I'm Canadian) - no, that's when the lawsuits start.
I would LOVE to study Obama's campaign as a retrospect. He did things nobody else ever thought of. He is the first real Internet candidate.
Ron Paul was the first. Obama copied much of what he was doing and brought it off line.
What did Ron Paul do that was at all comparable to Obama's my.barackobama.com?
Nothing at all. Ron Paul was pretty much unknown to everyone who doesn't read Digg.
Yeah. Ron Paul went viral, but not because of anything he did. Obama beat the two greatest political machines of our age and he did it almost entirely grassroots.
Obama grassroots? I don't think you are using the term correctly. It doesn't just mean "has popular support".
Grassroots, as I understand it, is when the movement is not orchestrated, but just springs up around the politician. Ron Paul and Huckabee certainly qualify, but I don't see how Obama does.
Grassroots, as I understand it, is when the movement is not orchestrated, but just springs up around the politician. Ron Paul and Huckabee certainly qualify, but I don't see how Obama does.
I'm sorry. I thought "grassroots" meant something akin to "community organization." My bad!
Okay, Obama isn't grassroots. But he has still put together the single most powerful team of volunteers any election has seen. And he's orchestrated a lot of it over the Internet.
Okay, Obama isn't grassroots. But he has still put together the single most powerful team of volunteers any election has seen. And he's orchestrated a lot of it over the Internet.
Congratulations, go to the head of the class.
I never understood how the internet crowd moved from Paul to Obama. The two could not be on more opposite ends of the spectrum from an economic theory perspective.
I supported Paul because I'm a big fan of the concept of federalism. States band together for the few things that benefit greatly from collective action, like national defense, but keep the rest of the powers for themselves. It's kind of what the Constitution says in the first place, but even from a purely practical perspective, you have more say over a government that governs fewer people.
Government is a compromise between the benefits of collective action and the drawbacks of other people influencing those actions. We're not in the right place on the spectrum.
I support Obama because he has a reasonable approach to foreign policy, he cares about open government, he's ridiculously intelligent, his party isn't theocratic, and Sarah Palin isn't his running mate. I could do without the anti-trade sentiment, continuing the coupling of healthcare to employment, etc, but you work with the hand you've been dealt.
Government is a compromise between the benefits of collective action and the drawbacks of other people influencing those actions. We're not in the right place on the spectrum.
I support Obama because he has a reasonable approach to foreign policy, he cares about open government, he's ridiculously intelligent, his party isn't theocratic, and Sarah Palin isn't his running mate. I could do without the anti-trade sentiment, continuing the coupling of healthcare to employment, etc, but you work with the hand you've been dealt.
I don't think they did; it was different subsets of the "Internet crowd".
sometimes you just want to feel heard.
Howard Dean doesn't count?
I think you need to get more than 8 total votes to count. Dean and Ron Paul were both web fads, but Obama used it as an organizational tool and got results from it. Even if he doesn't win, he's forever changed the way campaigns will be run.
Dean wasn't a web fad, he was leading all the polls until about two weeks before the first primary when he opened his mouth and started saying stupid shit.
I agree, Obama wasn't the first to capture the Internet as an organizational tool, but he did it to a new level and made it a powerful weapon in his arsenal.
Dean was the first one to realize the Internet could be used. But Obama built up an incredibly powerful campaign force in part by using the Internet to coordinate vast amounts of people.
In most cases, your vote is meaningless. The common duty and celebration of whatever is kind of BS. You're better off convincing someone who would have voted differently not to vote at all. Instead, the two of you can celebrate your rights with beers, which is way more enjoyable, and has the same effect on policy.
If you live in California, Obama will win this state. It's not even a contest. Why not do something creative with your vote? Have some fun with it. You know, you can write in ANYONE's name for the presidential election.
Hypnotoad 08!
Proposition 8 really is pretty close, and is evil. It's worth going to the polls just to vote no on that. Religious fundies come out in force, and we need to balance their hate.
If you live in California, Obama will win this state. It's not even a contest. Why not do something creative with your vote? Have some fun with it. You know, you can write in ANYONE's name for the presidential election.
Hypnotoad 08!
Proposition 8 really is pretty close, and is evil. It's worth going to the polls just to vote no on that. Religious fundies come out in force, and we need to balance their hate.
Voting for the President can seem meaningless, but the local elections are really decided by small margins. Our town of 60,000 often has mayoral races that have margins of less than a thousand. And that often has more of an impact on your daily life. Property taxes, local roads, local schools, zoning, parks, green acres conservation etc.
All Hail President Hypnotoad!
And the more Republicans you convince that it is meaningless to vote, the more certain a Democrat win is - so it's inevitable!
Since a Democrat win is inevitable, no one needs to bother voting. Saves all the hassle of standing in line and such.
Since a Democrat win is inevitable, no one needs to bother voting. Saves all the hassle of standing in line and such.
Obama held a rally two blocks from my home last night. There were over two thousand at the rally all partying and having a good time. I imagine that they all went home so confident that the next day they forgot to vote.
I'm joking of course. This state will swing blue this year. But, it's happened before that over-confidence has lost an election.
I suggest that every man go out and vote his conscience. It's not just about who wins this time. It's about perception, and exercise of your rights. If you don't exercise your rights, they will be taken away. Even if you disagree with both major candidates, a vote of 'other' will do more for your cause than no vote.
I'm joking of course. This state will swing blue this year. But, it's happened before that over-confidence has lost an election.
I suggest that every man go out and vote his conscience. It's not just about who wins this time. It's about perception, and exercise of your rights. If you don't exercise your rights, they will be taken away. Even if you disagree with both major candidates, a vote of 'other' will do more for your cause than no vote.
Seriously, I'm becoming more persuaded that voting for the right person is much more important than some pragmatic, battle winning perspective that says minimize evil and maximize win potential. One election is not that much in the grand scheme of things. The funny thing is that once everyone realizes this, the principled vote becomes the pragmatic vote.
Disclaimer, I didn't do that this time, so don't take this as reverse psychology. If you think it is, go ahead and vote pragmatically. If that confused you even more, then don't vote. Now stop thinking about it before your head explodes.
Disclaimer, I didn't do that this time, so don't take this as reverse psychology. If you think it is, go ahead and vote pragmatically. If that confused you even more, then don't vote. Now stop thinking about it before your head explodes.
"So, did you vote for Obama?"
"No, I wrote in for the Ron Paul/Hypnotoad ticket."
"WHAT!? But you don't want McCain to win, do you?"
"No, but I live in California. Unless I vote a couple million times, my vote doesn't matter. California's blue by about 20 points."
"I can't believe you!!"
Some people just don't get statistics.
"No, I wrote in for the Ron Paul/Hypnotoad ticket."
"WHAT!? But you don't want McCain to win, do you?"
"No, but I live in California. Unless I vote a couple million times, my vote doesn't matter. California's blue by about 20 points."
"I can't believe you!!"
Some people just don't get statistics.
Where'd this vote hypnotoad meme come from? I've seen it pop up a couple places today.
I don't think the message should be Just vote, but rather get educated on the issues and cast an informed vote.
Everyone should learn as much about the issues as they can, though when it comes down to it you only have to be more informed than the average voter to improve the pool. Which isn't too high a bar.
I know this might rile a few people up, but I think voting is coercive. Personally, I don't see myself ever participating in a vote unless I know everyone involved in its consequences is a consenting individual. So I respectfully disagree that it is my duty or anyone's duty to participate in a coercive vote. http://is.gd/3WIh
You seem confused. The purpose of government is to have a stable group of muggers who behave themselves, not to make you guilt-free.
/You/ can never legitimize or de-legitimize the state, only its citizens in aggregate can. Which is why voting is so handy, you get to de-legitimize a state without all that nasty killing.
I don't understand grand visions of a world built entirely of nice people. Someone will always figure out that they can be top dog by being 10% more asshole than everyone else, and then you're back to the start- building a society around coercion and limiting assholes and useful shortcuts to revolution.
Public schools may not be the best, but you may have missed some important life lessons by skipping out.
/You/ can never legitimize or de-legitimize the state, only its citizens in aggregate can. Which is why voting is so handy, you get to de-legitimize a state without all that nasty killing.
I don't understand grand visions of a world built entirely of nice people. Someone will always figure out that they can be top dog by being 10% more asshole than everyone else, and then you're back to the start- building a society around coercion and limiting assholes and useful shortcuts to revolution.
Public schools may not be the best, but you may have missed some important life lessons by skipping out.
For better or worse, US have a lot of coercive power around the world, and your choice of president can make a big difference for a lot of people who have no say in the election.
So as a non-american I tell you that it is your goddam duty to get informed and vote.
You may not like to vote, but you have to. It's like watching a car crash about to happen and you have the ability to prevent it - sure it infringes on your personal freedom to mind you own business, but it's your duty to do something anyway.
So as a non-american I tell you that it is your goddam duty to get informed and vote.
You may not like to vote, but you have to. It's like watching a car crash about to happen and you have the ability to prevent it - sure it infringes on your personal freedom to mind you own business, but it's your duty to do something anyway.
You wouldn't like Australia then. Voting is compulsory. You would risk a $20 fine (or having to come up with a good excuse) if you don't vote. Orwellian maybe, but they do have sausage sizzles and cake stalls which most people seem to like.
And expensive, capped, government controlled internet. Which the government wants to add an extensive government firewall to. And logging/surveillance of which websites people visit.
But who want's freedom when you can have sausages? ;)
But who want's freedom when you can have sausages? ;)
> And expensive, capped, government controlled internet.
Geographic reasons for the capped and expensive internet. Long undersea cable to the US. Historically we have paid for traffic both to and from the US.
Government controlled? How? At least we can still play poker online or bet on the US elections. What restrictions do you mean?
> Which the government wants to add an extensive government firewall to.
Yep this would suck but it's not operating yet and can still be stopped.
> And logging/surveillance of which websites people visit.
Um no. You'd be thinking of the NSA there mate.
> But who want's freedom when you can have sausages? ;)
I'd welcome a legitimate comparison of the virtues of the Australian as opposed to the US system of democracy.
Geographic reasons for the capped and expensive internet. Long undersea cable to the US. Historically we have paid for traffic both to and from the US.
Government controlled? How? At least we can still play poker online or bet on the US elections. What restrictions do you mean?
> Which the government wants to add an extensive government firewall to.
Yep this would suck but it's not operating yet and can still be stopped.
> And logging/surveillance of which websites people visit.
Um no. You'd be thinking of the NSA there mate.
> But who want's freedom when you can have sausages? ;)
I'd welcome a legitimate comparison of the virtues of the Australian as opposed to the US system of democracy.
I think that voting should be compulsory, but with a 'none of the above' option.
In Australia it is.
My mother once wrote to them "I think compulsory democracy is a contradiction in terms" Clever, but they still fined her.
As they should have. ;-)
Democracy is not the right to do as one pleases, it's a way of running society. As such it's perfectly reasonable for a democratic society to decide that the privilege of citizenship comes with responsibilities, one of which being the requirement to vote. It's no different from deciding that stealing is illegal, if the populace disagrees they can make it an election issue and push the "non-compulsory voting" issue.
Democracy is not the right to do as one pleases, it's a way of running society. As such it's perfectly reasonable for a democratic society to decide that the privilege of citizenship comes with responsibilities, one of which being the requirement to vote. It's no different from deciding that stealing is illegal, if the populace disagrees they can make it an election issue and push the "non-compulsory voting" issue.
Thats all fine and good -- but what if you dislike all of the choices? In other words, you are saying I should be forced by the government to spend time out of my day to go somewhere to complete a write-in vote for people who likely wont win? Alternatively, if you read reports -- some district ALWAYS go a certain direction (liberal/conservative/etc). So if you are a liberal in a district that has gone conservative for 80+ years... whats the point
I think this is counterproductive. If people don't want to have their voice heard, then they should not be forced. Those who are willing/able/eager to vote, shall, and those who arent, have no excuse to bitch about the results.
My point is not that the above are always sound arguments for an individual to not vote, but that we should never be forced to do anything by our government. If I want to sit at home and not be part of the system, well thats my fucking right. And that right is paramount, in my opinion, to any 'right' society claims that I should be involved in it. What can I say, I'm a libertarian.
I think this is counterproductive. If people don't want to have their voice heard, then they should not be forced. Those who are willing/able/eager to vote, shall, and those who arent, have no excuse to bitch about the results.
My point is not that the above are always sound arguments for an individual to not vote, but that we should never be forced to do anything by our government. If I want to sit at home and not be part of the system, well thats my fucking right. And that right is paramount, in my opinion, to any 'right' society claims that I should be involved in it. What can I say, I'm a libertarian.
I agree people should not be forced to vote - if anything that will simply make MORE ill-informed votes. That being said, if you're a liberal in a conservative district, vote, make your voice heard. My district in the last Canadian election was conservative by a slim 80 votes, and you can be sure the new guy won't be doing anything overly conservative - his hold on the majority is tenuous at best and he knows it.
A failure to vote in this circumstance will simply hand the candidate a landslide, and a de facto approval to do whatever the hell he wants.
A failure to vote in this circumstance will simply hand the candidate a landslide, and a de facto approval to do whatever the hell he wants.
That didn't seem to bother Bush.
Indeed... I've had a few arguments about whether it should be compulsory or not... If this is some kind of infringement on personal liberties and such.
Whichever side I've argued on (and I've tried either) - generally everyone agrees that having the vast majority of the population vote is a good idea, and "works" on whatever level you want to define that.
Whichever side I've argued on (and I've tried either) - generally everyone agrees that having the vast majority of the population vote is a good idea, and "works" on whatever level you want to define that.
If you think the American government is coercive, then imagine what would transpire in its absence. Regardless, voting reduces the coercive power of the state by affording citizens the right to change government.
By remaining in your country and paying taxes you've bought into the "system" that most of us accept as a pretty good one. You're free to emigrate somewhere else if you don't like it. I don't see anything "coercive" about that.
What if I chose to remain and not pay taxes. Am I then free to live peacefully and not be a part of the state? Essentially, what happens when I peacefully non-comply?
No because you are a leach off the state. Did you go to public school here? Have you ever been to a hospital? Driven on a road? Used our power grid? Used the internet?
Of course you have, so "living peacefully" in the country is about as OK as some guy I don't know "living peacefully" in my basement. Sure, he isn't hurting me, but that doesn't mean he isn't a thief. And while you try to call taxes theft, the idea that you would not pay taxes but still enjoy the services the government gives (no matter how hard you try, you can not escape present or past use), is definitely theft. The fact that you try to make yourself sound innocent by ensuring you won't kill anyone doing THEIR job is laughable. Is it ok to rob a bank as long as you do it peacefully?
Of course you have, so "living peacefully" in the country is about as OK as some guy I don't know "living peacefully" in my basement. Sure, he isn't hurting me, but that doesn't mean he isn't a thief. And while you try to call taxes theft, the idea that you would not pay taxes but still enjoy the services the government gives (no matter how hard you try, you can not escape present or past use), is definitely theft. The fact that you try to make yourself sound innocent by ensuring you won't kill anyone doing THEIR job is laughable. Is it ok to rob a bank as long as you do it peacefully?
Am I leeching off the state or is the state leeching off its citizens? I did not go to public school, but the state still told my school what they must teach to be considered legitimate. I have been to a hospital. I have driven on a road in a car, on a motorcycle, on a moped, on a bicycle and I have even walked on roads. I am using the PG&E power grid as I type this. And, of course, I am using the internet to respond to your post.
I replied to this kind of thinking in another post in this comment thread, but I do not have a choice in the matter as to whose roads I use if I wish to go from place to another because they are monopolized by government. I would like it if the government did not have monopoly control over things, but I do not deny that they have control. It may be of some consolation to you that I pay and have paid taxes in the past. The government, in my mind, is simply "a gang of thieves writ large" as Murray Rothbard once said. They provide services but they can only do so by monopolizing the service they provide and _taking_ other peoples money to finance the administration of that service.
If you can rob a bank peacefully I would very much like to see that for the sake of argument.
I replied to this kind of thinking in another post in this comment thread, but I do not have a choice in the matter as to whose roads I use if I wish to go from place to another because they are monopolized by government. I would like it if the government did not have monopoly control over things, but I do not deny that they have control. It may be of some consolation to you that I pay and have paid taxes in the past. The government, in my mind, is simply "a gang of thieves writ large" as Murray Rothbard once said. They provide services but they can only do so by monopolizing the service they provide and _taking_ other peoples money to finance the administration of that service.
If you can rob a bank peacefully I would very much like to see that for the sake of argument.
The roads were not always a government monopoly, nor were the canals, nor the railroads. All had some government support but they were not run by the government. But at some point it became clear that this was a FAILURE. Without roads and rails and at one point, canals, this countries economy would not function. Sure you can make some high traffic routes private and run them better, I would love that. The fact that I-95 is under construction, and they only work 8 hours a day 5 days a week while inconveniencing me anytime of day is something that no private business would do because they would lose customers. But look at the inability to get broadband in rural areas - it is significantly cheaper to run fiber than to build a road, and you can't even get that done.
So yes, you could avoid paying taxes, but at the expense of losing more than 30% of your revenue as the economy crumbled. I can understand the principle, but pragmatically what you want to do is a pipe dream and economically it will be WORSE for you monetarily. I understand standing on principle on the 1st amendment or torture or policy, but when we start talking dollars and cents, your ideas just don't hold water.
So yes, you could avoid paying taxes, but at the expense of losing more than 30% of your revenue as the economy crumbled. I can understand the principle, but pragmatically what you want to do is a pipe dream and economically it will be WORSE for you monetarily. I understand standing on principle on the 1st amendment or torture or policy, but when we start talking dollars and cents, your ideas just don't hold water.
Are you advocating anarchy then?
"They provide services but they can only do so by monopolizing the service they provide and _taking_ other peoples money to finance the administration of that service."
I just don't get this. How do you expect them to pay for services? And let's not forget that "the government" isn't some magic entity, it's made up of the citizens of the country itself. I'm pretty sure the US government employs more citizens than any other organization in the US.
I would say that many of the services and infrastructure the government typically provides are considered "natural monopolies". It doesn't make sense to have a bunch of parallel roads when you can have one. Same with water, electricity, etc. With the government providing a single "set" of infrastructure you may need X miles of road, pipe, power lines, or whatever, if you had 4 companies competing you would need 4 times as much, which would end up costing the end user 4 times more.
But in fact, the government doesn't have a complete monopoly on roads, since there are privately owned toll roads, which you have to pay to drive on. Would you prefer all roads were privately owned, and the owners could then charge arbitrarily high tolls?
"They provide services but they can only do so by monopolizing the service they provide and _taking_ other peoples money to finance the administration of that service."
I just don't get this. How do you expect them to pay for services? And let's not forget that "the government" isn't some magic entity, it's made up of the citizens of the country itself. I'm pretty sure the US government employs more citizens than any other organization in the US.
I would say that many of the services and infrastructure the government typically provides are considered "natural monopolies". It doesn't make sense to have a bunch of parallel roads when you can have one. Same with water, electricity, etc. With the government providing a single "set" of infrastructure you may need X miles of road, pipe, power lines, or whatever, if you had 4 companies competing you would need 4 times as much, which would end up costing the end user 4 times more.
But in fact, the government doesn't have a complete monopoly on roads, since there are privately owned toll roads, which you have to pay to drive on. Would you prefer all roads were privately owned, and the owners could then charge arbitrarily high tolls?
Well, you could always move to remote cabin in Montana.
And mail bombs to people.
And mail bombs to people.
I was serious, excluding the Unibomber reference. Isolating yourself and living off the land is the closest you're going to get.
You won't be consuming any of our tax-funded services, and you won't be contributing to our economy or paying taxes (assuming no property tax?)
Beyond that, the people inside these borders have decided this is how we want things to work, and (as I mentioned) if you don't like it you're free to give up your citizenship and move somewhere else.
You won't be consuming any of our tax-funded services, and you won't be contributing to our economy or paying taxes (assuming no property tax?)
Beyond that, the people inside these borders have decided this is how we want things to work, and (as I mentioned) if you don't like it you're free to give up your citizenship and move somewhere else.
Actually you're not. The US won't let you go stateless and even makes it complicated to renounce your US citizenship after you've gotten a second one. Usually it takes many years to be eligible for citizenship elsewhere.
Not that I think it's terribly relevant...
Not that I think it's terribly relevant...
There are millions of people living in the US today that have no legal right to be here. You can live like they do off the "grid" but you will make less money and have less security.
That link makes no sense to me. Not that I'm saying this particular system we are talking about is perfect, far from it, but what's the alternative? How would you like society to make decisions? After all, any society must necessarily make decisions affecting those who do not have a say, like infants and people yet to be born. Surely it's better if as many as possible of those affected have a say? (Personally, I'd like the entire world to have a vote in the US election because of its far-reaching effects, but I don't think that delegitimizes the system... entirely. ;-)
If you feel oppressed by the US democratic system, you could always apply for asylum in a country that you think better runs according to your values...
If you feel oppressed by the US democratic system, you could always apply for asylum in a country that you think better runs according to your values...
What if I want to simply secede from the government entirely?
To your final point, though, I find this talk of emigration strange. Many people ask me this question and I concede that it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility for me. However, am I not petitioning for the same thing a voting population is? The difference I see is that I do not want to affect change through the apparatus of the state because I find it illegitimate. Instead I will try to affect change through non-violent means. I'll speak with you and try to convince you that non-violence is the way toward a peaceful and sustainable society. I will not use the barrel of a gun personally or by proxy(the police) to tell you or anyone else what to do. I will not get together with my friends to vote on what you must and mustn't do.
Be peaceful.
To your final point, though, I find this talk of emigration strange. Many people ask me this question and I concede that it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility for me. However, am I not petitioning for the same thing a voting population is? The difference I see is that I do not want to affect change through the apparatus of the state because I find it illegitimate. Instead I will try to affect change through non-violent means. I'll speak with you and try to convince you that non-violence is the way toward a peaceful and sustainable society. I will not use the barrel of a gun personally or by proxy(the police) to tell you or anyone else what to do. I will not get together with my friends to vote on what you must and mustn't do.
Be peaceful.
Great in theory, but you can't secede from the effects of government. Lets say that you built a farm and where completely self sustaining. You never went out for anything, never put your waste onto the populace's sewer system. You never went out for healthcare, or drove on the public's roads, or used any technology funded by the government. What about the education you received at the tax payers expense? What about the past medical care you got as a child that you will never repay. Your theory is so irrational as to be impossible.
If this person's parents had more than the median income, they almost certainly paid enough in taxes to cover their child's education. They probably also paid for his/her health care.
The value provided by the government is merely the sum of all taxes paid - overhead/waste/corruption. Some people (the rich) get less back than they put in, some (the poor) get back more than they put in. So anyone who is sufficiently rich (1) has probably already repaid any debt they owed to society, and can legitimately secede.
(1) I ignore for the moment people who got rich from rent seeking, e.g. defense contractors, trial lawyers or members of public sector unions.
The value provided by the government is merely the sum of all taxes paid - overhead/waste/corruption. Some people (the rich) get less back than they put in, some (the poor) get back more than they put in. So anyone who is sufficiently rich (1) has probably already repaid any debt they owed to society, and can legitimately secede.
(1) I ignore for the moment people who got rich from rent seeking, e.g. defense contractors, trial lawyers or members of public sector unions.
There have been some things that get pretty close. Kibbutzs in Israel simulate much of the "live peacefully with neighbors" but they tend towards collectivism.
The problem with going whole-hog anarchism is that on any significant scale (even a couple hundred people) peer-to-peer trust breaks down and anything that steps in to make processes more streamlined and reliable or introduces organizational structure becomes functionally equivalent to a government. We rely to such a huge extent on specialization of labor and trust of abstractions that such freedom doesn't scale if one expects modern amenities.
The problem with going whole-hog anarchism is that on any significant scale (even a couple hundred people) peer-to-peer trust breaks down and anything that steps in to make processes more streamlined and reliable or introduces organizational structure becomes functionally equivalent to a government. We rely to such a huge extent on specialization of labor and trust of abstractions that such freedom doesn't scale if one expects modern amenities.
You pay taxes though, right?
Out of fear of being murdered, yes. Honestly, this may sound like an exaggeration to prove a point, but I honestly pay taxes to save myself from certain death. But I am glad you asked because I am interested in not paying federal taxes next year. Instead of simply keeping the money for myself, however, I want to calculate what the federal government would like to rob from my wages and giving it away to charity. If you're interested in doing something like this with me let me know.
I think I'm as libertarian as anybody, but I fail to see a connection between not paying taxes and being murdered by the government. Obviously there are consequences to not paying taxes, but those would be fines/jail time, not certain death. Could you explain a little more?
Fines or jail time are merely the better alternative once one has decided to non-comply. If one nonviolently non-complies with the state's demands to pay taxes they will likely fine her. If she refuses to pay the fine they will likely come knocking with armed men. If she further refuses the authority of the armed men to arrest her then the only recourse that the state has is to perform an act of aggression against her. It is true that they might drag her to jail--subduing her, a non-violent person, in the process. This is hardly what I would call humane. Anyways now she is in jail and still believes the state to have no authority over her. What recourse does she have to get out without capitulating to the state's authority over her? If she attempts escape she will be severely punished or killed. It is easier for her to fall in line and listen to the state than disobey simply because the consequences of choosing alternatives are much, much worse.
Her death could actually happen a variety of ways but I only wanted to go off the example you mentioned. If you need further clarification I mention this topic and how it relates to voting here http://is.gd/3WIh
I don't want to go to jail. What is the alternative to spending years in jail? Paying 30% of my income? It is better than prison, but we ought to call this act of aggression what it really is--theft. Tax is simply a euphemism for theft, in my mind. And not to derail the topic you mentioned, but I would ask you to consider what good taxes have ever done besides making powerful people more powerful and financing wars where we justify the killing of innocents for some elusive greater good.
Thanks for your question.
Her death could actually happen a variety of ways but I only wanted to go off the example you mentioned. If you need further clarification I mention this topic and how it relates to voting here http://is.gd/3WIh
I don't want to go to jail. What is the alternative to spending years in jail? Paying 30% of my income? It is better than prison, but we ought to call this act of aggression what it really is--theft. Tax is simply a euphemism for theft, in my mind. And not to derail the topic you mentioned, but I would ask you to consider what good taxes have ever done besides making powerful people more powerful and financing wars where we justify the killing of innocents for some elusive greater good.
Thanks for your question.
Roads, airports, the internet, at a minimum, not to mention many other technologies. Taxes bought the rest of this country after the initial settlement. Taxes save thousands of people who otherwise would not be able to pay for medical care.
Although if you want to save 30% on taxes, and let thousands of innocent people who do not have as much money as you die at the doors of a hospital they can't afford - you can definitely keep the righteous tone you have going without one hint of irony.
Taxes are a necessary evil, the only question is to what extend we should tax ourselves.
Although if you want to save 30% on taxes, and let thousands of innocent people who do not have as much money as you die at the doors of a hospital they can't afford - you can definitely keep the righteous tone you have going without one hint of irony.
Taxes are a necessary evil, the only question is to what extend we should tax ourselves.
Honestly, the GP sounds like an antisocial anarchist, of the sociopathic variety. Just because he's made a good life for himself he is completely unable to empathize with the less fortunate, nor is he able to comprehend how significantly services provided by taxation have contributed to his presumptive success.
He is also unable to comprehend how the fabric of society functions. We all necessarily give up our freedom of total choice in exchange for the opportunity to live peaceably amongst one another. This is the fundamentals of democracy - that decisions are made jointly, and that whatever the decisions may be, people will abide by them (or challenge them in a structured, organized way).
He is also unable to comprehend how the fabric of society functions. We all necessarily give up our freedom of total choice in exchange for the opportunity to live peaceably amongst one another. This is the fundamentals of democracy - that decisions are made jointly, and that whatever the decisions may be, people will abide by them (or challenge them in a structured, organized way).
To be frank, I think most of this tax-related drama would be solved if people had a much more direct say in what their taxes went to support.
I don't think that most people who view taxes as theft would view them that way if we were using our available resources and technology to allow them to accomplish what taxes should be accomplishing anyhow - whatever the people want them to.
At the moment taxes accomplish whatever the state, city, and federal governments want them to, with the people only having a (at best) second-hand say in what happens through a system of representative voting that has historically had a high rate of greedy, power-hungry liars being on the receiving end of the votes.
My ideal politics fall much closer to anarchism than not, but I don't think that taxes are always theft. However, at the moment I don't think that it's much of an error to compare the two.
I don't think that most people who view taxes as theft would view them that way if we were using our available resources and technology to allow them to accomplish what taxes should be accomplishing anyhow - whatever the people want them to.
At the moment taxes accomplish whatever the state, city, and federal governments want them to, with the people only having a (at best) second-hand say in what happens through a system of representative voting that has historically had a high rate of greedy, power-hungry liars being on the receiving end of the votes.
My ideal politics fall much closer to anarchism than not, but I don't think that taxes are always theft. However, at the moment I don't think that it's much of an error to compare the two.
Roads in Illinois and most of the USA, before Lincoln’s system of spoils were actually private toll roads. In fact, most of the early days of government internal improvement projects, while having serious competition from the private sector, mostly were examples of failure. Perhaps it is far easier to make a case why you/we must be mugged, by the powers that be for some social good then it is to make a case for freedom, in all forms.
“Taxes are necessary evil”… I conceive the idea that this is like 1+1=3
“Taxes are necessary evil”… I conceive the idea that this is like 1+1=3
They'll throw you in jail, only if you're a citizen (you have certain rights and responsibilities with that citizenship).
If you're not a citizen they'll deport you and you can be on your merry way finding another country that will let you do what you want.
You could always give up your citizenship...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/17/news/expat.php
If you're not a citizen they'll deport you and you can be on your merry way finding another country that will let you do what you want.
You could always give up your citizenship...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/17/news/expat.php
If you stop paying taxes, will you also stop using public roads, public transport, FDA-tested food and drugs, airplanes flown by ex-airforce pilots, internet protocols developed by DARPA, etc, etc? Or do you want to just leech off the things other people's taxes pay?
Do I have a choice? Aren't all(if not most) of the things you've mentioned government-controlled monopolies?
More to the point, though, I want these services, but I think it is wrong to take money from people to finance these services. If you and I both agree that roads, food and drug testing, transportation, etc. are worth paying for then let us get together and pay for them ourselves. However, we ought not take money from people who don't want these services simply because we do. Voting specifically obscures this moral dilemma because it is rule of a majority over the minority. Democracy _seems_ good, but it can only serve to justify theft, as it does today. If 51% of people agree that stealing from Tom and Dick to benefit Harry is okay then magically it is okay? Take care of the means and the end will take care of itself. Don't steal or aggress against your neighbor either individually or en masse. Be peaceful.
More to the point, though, I want these services, but I think it is wrong to take money from people to finance these services. If you and I both agree that roads, food and drug testing, transportation, etc. are worth paying for then let us get together and pay for them ourselves. However, we ought not take money from people who don't want these services simply because we do. Voting specifically obscures this moral dilemma because it is rule of a majority over the minority. Democracy _seems_ good, but it can only serve to justify theft, as it does today. If 51% of people agree that stealing from Tom and Dick to benefit Harry is okay then magically it is okay? Take care of the means and the end will take care of itself. Don't steal or aggress against your neighbor either individually or en masse. Be peaceful.
Unfortunately, the economics of your proposed system do not work out. People are short-sighted. People are locally-political (ie 'Not In My BackYard'). Some things require economies of scale.
I'm with you, taxes are bad. In some ways, I agree with you that we should be able to earmark our dollars for things we 'prefer', but unfortunately that system will never work out.
I also agree that taxes are theft from the government. Unfortunately, the government has a need to steal from you. But its important to look at it like this. I've always maintained that TAX DAY should be 1 day before VOTING DAY. Anyone else notice how they are 6 months apart? This is by design. I believe in small, local government, which is a less extreme view than you are expounding above.
Unfortunately, some Federal/State taxes ARE necessary for a functioning society. We MUST have a military in some form. We MUST pay some government workers to regulate trade and commerce between states and other countries. We MUST have basic amenities that are built out at the cost of the populace as a whole, together, through taxes (Read: Water).
Everything else, however, is up for debate.
Remember -- as Winston Churchill once put: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried.."
I'm with you, taxes are bad. In some ways, I agree with you that we should be able to earmark our dollars for things we 'prefer', but unfortunately that system will never work out.
I also agree that taxes are theft from the government. Unfortunately, the government has a need to steal from you. But its important to look at it like this. I've always maintained that TAX DAY should be 1 day before VOTING DAY. Anyone else notice how they are 6 months apart? This is by design. I believe in small, local government, which is a less extreme view than you are expounding above.
Unfortunately, some Federal/State taxes ARE necessary for a functioning society. We MUST have a military in some form. We MUST pay some government workers to regulate trade and commerce between states and other countries. We MUST have basic amenities that are built out at the cost of the populace as a whole, together, through taxes (Read: Water).
Everything else, however, is up for debate.
Remember -- as Winston Churchill once put: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried.."
I tend to think "economies of scale" or simply economics is a very difficult thing to understand. Governmental economic policy, whatever it may be, is the implicit practice of saying "We, the chosen few, understand one of the most complex things in the world and we will control it for you." I'm pessimistic of anyone claiming omniscience in something so complex whether they are an individual or a mouthpiece for a group of people.
Order in economy tends to come about more quickly and more judiciously when government is not involved. Corporations though they may finance or have interests in a warfare state are only allowed to exercise power through the fictitious legitimacy of the state. If Joe's Diner went to war with Bob's Diner we quickly see the cost of war. They are both out of business because war is expensive. Not to mention ordinary folks would not say to themselves, "Well Joe over here is fighting for my rights! Support The Troops (of Joe's Diner)!" This, of course, is ridiculous.
So this is why we need taxes? Warfare or welfare. I would rather be peaceful and sleep at night. I would rather trade with my neighbors than impoverish them through blockades, embargoes, or whatever else the government can only do through force of arms.
I notice you are very strident about what taxes must be used for, but my whole point on taxes is that if we MUST have these things then let us do them voluntarily through cooperative efforts. If you and I both want an organization to achieve goal X let us get together and achieve that goal. If someone doesn't want to help us out then let's try to convince them we're right not through force of arms(taxation), but through discussion and friendship. Be peaceful.
I think you might do well to study Winston Churchill's policies during and leading up to World War II. He and FDR both colluded to embolden western government to become more interventionist and war-like. I have heard that quote before, but I would challenge you, seriously, to consider a world without government. Start small with a family, then a city, then a region, then a continent. At what point does government intervention by force of arms against peaceful non-compliers become okay? I only ask that you answer that question for yourself.
Order in economy tends to come about more quickly and more judiciously when government is not involved. Corporations though they may finance or have interests in a warfare state are only allowed to exercise power through the fictitious legitimacy of the state. If Joe's Diner went to war with Bob's Diner we quickly see the cost of war. They are both out of business because war is expensive. Not to mention ordinary folks would not say to themselves, "Well Joe over here is fighting for my rights! Support The Troops (of Joe's Diner)!" This, of course, is ridiculous.
So this is why we need taxes? Warfare or welfare. I would rather be peaceful and sleep at night. I would rather trade with my neighbors than impoverish them through blockades, embargoes, or whatever else the government can only do through force of arms.
I notice you are very strident about what taxes must be used for, but my whole point on taxes is that if we MUST have these things then let us do them voluntarily through cooperative efforts. If you and I both want an organization to achieve goal X let us get together and achieve that goal. If someone doesn't want to help us out then let's try to convince them we're right not through force of arms(taxation), but through discussion and friendship. Be peaceful.
I think you might do well to study Winston Churchill's policies during and leading up to World War II. He and FDR both colluded to embolden western government to become more interventionist and war-like. I have heard that quote before, but I would challenge you, seriously, to consider a world without government. Start small with a family, then a city, then a region, then a continent. At what point does government intervention by force of arms against peaceful non-compliers become okay? I only ask that you answer that question for yourself.
The good news is that in America it is not the tyranny of the majority over the minority. When you look at the population distribution vs the electoral college vote distribution the minority of Americans in this country, it quickly becomes apparent that the rural minority has more power than the (sub)urban majority. This largely correlates to conservatives winning 7 out of the last 10 Presidential elections, so truly, it is the minority telling the majority what to do. The founding fathers greatly understood the problem you are pointing to - and put many safe guards in place. Many of those have been eroded, but not all.
And to characterize taxes as stealing is utterly ridiculous. If you don't pay taxes should the police not protect your house? Are you saying that taxes should be volunteering? Maybe you should brush up on economics, but it is clear that there are somethings government has to do. Why would I volunteer to pay for the roads or the schools or the military if I don't have to and someone else will? And no person could really avoid using the services of the government.
And to characterize taxes as stealing is utterly ridiculous. If you don't pay taxes should the police not protect your house? Are you saying that taxes should be volunteering? Maybe you should brush up on economics, but it is clear that there are somethings government has to do. Why would I volunteer to pay for the roads or the schools or the military if I don't have to and someone else will? And no person could really avoid using the services of the government.
I agree on the republic idea, but those safe guards that have been eroded, make it stealing. The 16th was fraudulent ratified; “The Law That Never Was” makes this point well. If we “apportion” as the constitution says to, we have problem too, because it is a check as well. It would be hard politically to tell California to cough up their portion of the debt. So the constitution is not obeyed perhaps more so to divide the people, that is how the power that be controls populations. If it is gold and silver coins, to declaration of war to the way the 16th was passed turned into law, or the state’s picking of senators, who benefits? When the rule of law is not obeyed, I conceive the idea that perhaps you do have robbery, be it in different forms, but still robbery.
I've read all the conspiracy theories about the 16th amendment not being properly ratified, but honestly if we had to ratify it again today you and I both know that it would pass and so the whole arguement is moot. You are using loaded words to describe taxes. It is NOT stealing. Stealing is the unlawful taking of your money, if the taxes are approved by the rulers we all collectively voted for, then they are lawful. The fact that you disagree with everyone else, means that you simply disagree - not that taxes are stealing.
Legal plunder, perhaps would be a better term:-) And I would stand by that term as being correct. “Stealing is the unlawful taking of your money” agreed, so why is the constitution not being obeyed? Most of the programs, etc. are not constitutional along with everywhere the government is not obeying the constitution… there is a lot of this from not declaring war, to gold and silver coins. If the rule of law is not being obeyed, or was changed legally, by your own definition, perhaps it is stealing in many forms first of the power reserved for the people or the states.
I didn’t know “The Law That Never Was” was a conspiracy, I thought it was a factual record of what the state’s recorded and what the GSA and government recorded. Perhaps the term of conspiracy is a better label? or you are using a loaded word, to mark an area of taboo. After pushing towards a 100 years of tax/need brainwashing, I don’t know what the affect would be if the 16th was to pass today, I think it would never have passed in 1800, though:-) to say it is moot is like saying because the people would not approve the constitution today, using that document of freedom is moot as well, we should disregard it. I do not believe that would be wise. The more I think about how the rule of law is not being obeyed, in all its forms, the more I think stealing might be better than legal plunder…. I like your case though, thanks for reply
I didn’t know “The Law That Never Was” was a conspiracy, I thought it was a factual record of what the state’s recorded and what the GSA and government recorded. Perhaps the term of conspiracy is a better label? or you are using a loaded word, to mark an area of taboo. After pushing towards a 100 years of tax/need brainwashing, I don’t know what the affect would be if the 16th was to pass today, I think it would never have passed in 1800, though:-) to say it is moot is like saying because the people would not approve the constitution today, using that document of freedom is moot as well, we should disregard it. I do not believe that would be wise. The more I think about how the rule of law is not being obeyed, in all its forms, the more I think stealing might be better than legal plunder…. I like your case though, thanks for reply
No, "The Law That Never Was" is a conspiracy. A conspiracy for Benson to make money off dumb saps who believe it.
The court stated: "Benson has failed to point to evidence that would create a genuinely disputed fact regarding whether the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified or whether United States Citizens are legally obligated to pay federal taxes. Also, as is indicated above, Benson is precluded in this action from taking the position that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified."[20] The court stated that "the undisputed evidence shows that Benson had actual knowledge that the information in the Reliance Defense Package was false or fraudulent."[21] The court also stated: "Benson falsely tells customers that if they purchase and use his products they will be shielded from criminal prosecution for violating the internal revenue laws. Purchasers of the 'Reliance Defense Package' receive a letter signed by Benson that falsely represents that the purchaser can rely on Benson's research to conclude that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified, and that the purchaser is thereby not required to file federal income tax returns or pay federal income or social security taxes to the United States."[22] The court ruled that "Benson's position has no merit and he has used his fraudulent tax advice to deceive other citizens and profit from it" in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6700.[23]
And honestly, you don't think that a bunch of rich people would have tried to overturn the income tax back when it was 70%? I'm in the upper tax bracket. If I didn't have to pay it or I could donate to a fund for people who wanted to overturn it, I would in a heart beat.
I think it is a silly arguement to have. If it were up to me, all the taxes would be income taxes and everything else would be 0. No capital gains, no estate, no tariffs, no corporate. Make the American people feel exactly what these programs cost - becuase right now they pay all the other taxes indirectly and they don't know it. Make people feel what a big government really means on their pocket and then you will see how many more people are screaming for libertarian policies. But saying "we shouldn't pay any tax" and "i wish I could succeed from the government" which I know is a common libertarian ideal, is just so impractical as to be a detriment to the cause.
The court stated: "Benson has failed to point to evidence that would create a genuinely disputed fact regarding whether the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified or whether United States Citizens are legally obligated to pay federal taxes. Also, as is indicated above, Benson is precluded in this action from taking the position that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified."[20] The court stated that "the undisputed evidence shows that Benson had actual knowledge that the information in the Reliance Defense Package was false or fraudulent."[21] The court also stated: "Benson falsely tells customers that if they purchase and use his products they will be shielded from criminal prosecution for violating the internal revenue laws. Purchasers of the 'Reliance Defense Package' receive a letter signed by Benson that falsely represents that the purchaser can rely on Benson's research to conclude that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified, and that the purchaser is thereby not required to file federal income tax returns or pay federal income or social security taxes to the United States."[22] The court ruled that "Benson's position has no merit and he has used his fraudulent tax advice to deceive other citizens and profit from it" in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6700.[23]
And honestly, you don't think that a bunch of rich people would have tried to overturn the income tax back when it was 70%? I'm in the upper tax bracket. If I didn't have to pay it or I could donate to a fund for people who wanted to overturn it, I would in a heart beat.
I think it is a silly arguement to have. If it were up to me, all the taxes would be income taxes and everything else would be 0. No capital gains, no estate, no tariffs, no corporate. Make the American people feel exactly what these programs cost - becuase right now they pay all the other taxes indirectly and they don't know it. Make people feel what a big government really means on their pocket and then you will see how many more people are screaming for libertarian policies. But saying "we shouldn't pay any tax" and "i wish I could succeed from the government" which I know is a common libertarian ideal, is just so impractical as to be a detriment to the cause.
I always wondered what a government would look like if everyone could decide for theirselves where to go, say, 50% of their taxes.
A democracy?
I'm not sure this makes much sense. Can you choose to eat non-FDA approved foods or drugs; no, you go to jail if you do. Airlines can train their own pilots, if someone was in the air force before becoming a commercial pilot, that's great but not relevant. People outside of the US use Internet protocols paid for by DARPA, but they don't pay taxes.
Anyway, it is very easy to avoid income tax in the US -- don't have any income. Last time I checked, you don't forfeit any services, either.
Anyway, it is very easy to avoid income tax in the US -- don't have any income. Last time I checked, you don't forfeit any services, either.
Murdered? Certain death?
Maybe you know something I don't, but I don't think they impose the death penalty for not paying taxes.
In any case, paying taxes and not voting seems to be an ineffective strategy. What's your end game?
Maybe you know something I don't, but I don't think they impose the death penalty for not paying taxes.
In any case, paying taxes and not voting seems to be an ineffective strategy. What's your end game?
I would like to live in peace with my neighbors. The only justifiable way to achieve this goal is through non-violent noncompliance against the coercive state.
Also the post I linked to in my first comment explains why any illegitimate power must resort to murder to assert its power over others.
Also the post I linked to in my first comment explains why any illegitimate power must resort to murder to assert its power over others.
@scudco, you are trying to explain freedom to a domesticated person that has never experienced freedom.
i feel like i am explaining the same arguments over and over to people that believe the must be mastered or complete chaos will ensue. i think all libertarians feel this way talking to people.
for me, freedom is a dream worth dieing for. I just have not figured out what will lead to freedom.
i feel like i am explaining the same arguments over and over to people that believe the must be mastered or complete chaos will ensue. i think all libertarians feel this way talking to people.
for me, freedom is a dream worth dieing for. I just have not figured out what will lead to freedom.
Expect as a libertarian too, you guys are the ones who sink our chances to ever enact any meaningful progress. There is no society that has ever existed without some form of taxation. If you want no taxes, than you want no government. Then you are anarchists, not libertarians. I have no problem with that, but don't lump us in with you. Small government is a lot different than no government.
Cayman Islands GDP per capita is the 12th highest in the world. And has no direct taxation on individuals or companies. The Caymanians enjoy one of the highest outputs per capita and one of the highest standards of living in the world. From CIA world fact book.
This is sort-of correct. There are taxes on real-estate changes, corporate taxes, and import taxes.
Real estate and import taxes are the two that could be considered 'direct' taxes. Paying 7.5% or 10% of the value of your home at sale time is DEFINITELY a direct tax, its just highly delayed. This tax is based on the idea that most valuable property in the caymans is not owned by locals or is owned by very wealthy people. But everyone pays it...
Corporate taxes are indirect, but if you arent living off your own personal wealth, you are paying for those taxes through the products you buy from those companies or the lower wages you receive from those companies if you work there.
Aside from all of that -- it is foolish to assume that this would work in other countries that are not very small, exotic, and dependent (at least in some part) upon tourism/foreigners. In some sense, you could say that the taxes are paid by foreigners more than locals. Thats all fine and good for Caymans, but again, that would never work in the US, Europe, etc where populations are large compared to the number of visitors/foreigners.
Find me a country with a population of 50 Million that does anything like this, and I'll move there. :)
Real estate and import taxes are the two that could be considered 'direct' taxes. Paying 7.5% or 10% of the value of your home at sale time is DEFINITELY a direct tax, its just highly delayed. This tax is based on the idea that most valuable property in the caymans is not owned by locals or is owned by very wealthy people. But everyone pays it...
Corporate taxes are indirect, but if you arent living off your own personal wealth, you are paying for those taxes through the products you buy from those companies or the lower wages you receive from those companies if you work there.
Aside from all of that -- it is foolish to assume that this would work in other countries that are not very small, exotic, and dependent (at least in some part) upon tourism/foreigners. In some sense, you could say that the taxes are paid by foreigners more than locals. Thats all fine and good for Caymans, but again, that would never work in the US, Europe, etc where populations are large compared to the number of visitors/foreigners.
Find me a country with a population of 50 Million that does anything like this, and I'll move there. :)
Wealth in the Caymans is:
1 - Imported by wealthy residents who live there because of the exotic locale. 2 - Imported by tourism. 3 - Imported by the banking industry.
This would never work in a country that isn't a tax shelter from other nations, or a country that has actual, tangible, real industrial production.
1 - Imported by wealthy residents who live there because of the exotic locale. 2 - Imported by tourism. 3 - Imported by the banking industry.
This would never work in a country that isn't a tax shelter from other nations, or a country that has actual, tangible, real industrial production.
"This would never work in a country "
Why?
Why?
The basic notion of a (usual, industrial) country is that it is self-sufficient and provides mostly for its own. The Caymans is the antithesis of this. Wealth is imported, and the richness of the country is therefore artificial - i.e. not the result of any distinct value that it has produced through goods and services.
Of course you can create a near utopia without taxation for your own people if you are able to import fabulously rich residents by the boatload and taxing them instead. This is obviously not an option that is sustainable on a large scale , nor do most countries have the exotic climate to support it.
In short, you need to tax somebody. In the Caymans these happen to be rich foreigners on holiday (or in some sort of semi-permanent residence)... in other countries clearly the taxes have to come from somebody else.
Of course you can create a near utopia without taxation for your own people if you are able to import fabulously rich residents by the boatload and taxing them instead. This is obviously not an option that is sustainable on a large scale , nor do most countries have the exotic climate to support it.
In short, you need to tax somebody. In the Caymans these happen to be rich foreigners on holiday (or in some sort of semi-permanent residence)... in other countries clearly the taxes have to come from somebody else.
I guess focusing on the comment above, “and has no direct tax”. I have been told there was no direct tax in US till 1913, so how did it work then? we seem to get along just fine to that point? Assuming what you say is true, that it will never work….
“This would never work in a country that isn't a tax shelter from other nations,” but isn’t Manhattan N.Y. U.S. also a tax haven to foreigners, other then U.S. citizens? And doesn’t the Cayman Islands support competition among, within and between taxing districts of the world, for which they attract wealth? Maybe it’s the competition among governments that makes it work in Cayman, giving money owners a better deal then they get else where.
“Somebody”, yes… if direct then apportioned. Tax somebody with competition, perhaps maybe best.
“This would never work in a country that isn't a tax shelter from other nations,” but isn’t Manhattan N.Y. U.S. also a tax haven to foreigners, other then U.S. citizens? And doesn’t the Cayman Islands support competition among, within and between taxing districts of the world, for which they attract wealth? Maybe it’s the competition among governments that makes it work in Cayman, giving money owners a better deal then they get else where.
“Somebody”, yes… if direct then apportioned. Tax somebody with competition, perhaps maybe best.
i am all for the balance transfer tax of 0.3% its not game-able and its fair TO EVERYONE. i don't like tax policy that discriminates.
[deleted]
Voting is one of the few things the system asks you do to around here. So get off you arses and vote!
My son is a ardent Democrat. My wife a Republican. Each year, she stops by and picks him up on the way to the polls.
The act of voting should be important on a personal level that transcends statistics or apathy. It's a common duty and celebration of our right of choice.
My son is a ardent Democrat. My wife a Republican. Each year, she stops by and picks him up on the way to the polls.
The act of voting should be important on a personal level that transcends statistics or apathy. It's a common duty and celebration of our right of choice.
if their votes cancel each other out why bother?
Because voting is about a lot more than counting votes.
That's the point. We aren't in some struggle against the evil other guys (republicans, democrats) that are out to ruin our country. That's partisan election-year bullshit. Instead we are intelligent people who have honest differences. We're in this thing together a lot more than we're in this thing to exert our will over other citizens. Voting is being part of the system.
Not only that, but voting is a re-affirmation that we can vote. We can choose. Making good choices is important even if you're in the minority.
It's symbolic, but that's not the nature of my argument. It's required. Even if their votes cancel each other out, it's required that they take the time to make the best decisions they can and to exercise their right of choice. Like I said, it's one of the few things that's expected of us lunkheads.
That's the point. We aren't in some struggle against the evil other guys (republicans, democrats) that are out to ruin our country. That's partisan election-year bullshit. Instead we are intelligent people who have honest differences. We're in this thing together a lot more than we're in this thing to exert our will over other citizens. Voting is being part of the system.
Not only that, but voting is a re-affirmation that we can vote. We can choose. Making good choices is important even if you're in the minority.
It's symbolic, but that's not the nature of my argument. It's required. Even if their votes cancel each other out, it's required that they take the time to make the best decisions they can and to exercise their right of choice. Like I said, it's one of the few things that's expected of us lunkheads.
To paraphrase Dijkstra: Democracy is a much about voting as astronomy is about telescopes.
no, people don't generally have honest differences. an honest differences is when both sides are clearly identified, and there is mutual respect for differing conclusions based on the same data. policies in america are not based on anything in reality, but on what sells well.
imagine a marketing company that is run by the people it markets to. given such a feedback loop extreme results are not surprising.
imagine a marketing company that is run by the people it markets to. given such a feedback loop extreme results are not surprising.
Local elections and propositions? Belonging to different parties doesn't mean their ballots will be exact polar opposites.
Because it showed that 2 people actually cared. It doesn't matter who wins, as long as they know that people care it changes how they do things.
Don't forget this:
You are picking a President of our Great Nation for the next 4 years.
However, you are also electing a President that will likely choose one or more new Justices for our Supreme Court. That choice could live on for the next 30-40 years.
If a conservative President is elected, the court will likely swing conservative with his choice in one or more Justices. Liberal decisions like Roe V. Wade may be overturned. Pick a liberal President and it will likely be upheld.
It is those kinds of decisions that the court will make that will affect you in a direct way for a very long time.
If that's important to you -- vote.
You are picking a President of our Great Nation for the next 4 years.
However, you are also electing a President that will likely choose one or more new Justices for our Supreme Court. That choice could live on for the next 30-40 years.
If a conservative President is elected, the court will likely swing conservative with his choice in one or more Justices. Liberal decisions like Roe V. Wade may be overturned. Pick a liberal President and it will likely be upheld.
It is those kinds of decisions that the court will make that will affect you in a direct way for a very long time.
If that's important to you -- vote.
I unfortunately do not believe that is sufficient value in arguing about something that is so personal to people.
A president's first concern should be to the sovereignty of a Nation (economy, education, infrastructure, trade, military), and somehow, whether or not a woman wants to kill her unborn child is of little concern to me on a national level. That is something that should be decided by her religious beliefs or where she chooses to live and raise her family. I meat so many female vegetarians that don't want to kill a cow to eat it, that I can not imagine a woman aborting a baby because its FUN.
Women typically have a reason, and if we want to stop abortions there are so many pieces to the puzzle that making abortions illegal will not stop them.
If the reasons are economic, then we need to give single mothers more help.
If the reason is emotional in the case of rape and inceast, we need to be understanding to let them choose.
If the reason is medical, and life threatening, the moral lines are gray at best anyways.
If it was done as the result of a carefree sexual behavior, stopping abortions are not going to stop pre-martial sex. Heck I bet many of us on this forum are 1st borns and very well might be the result of a opps between two unmarried lovers.
It really pains me that we can become so easily divided on a topic that is so personal and so hard to be black and white on.
I really wish there were more political options than YES or NO.
A president's first concern should be to the sovereignty of a Nation (economy, education, infrastructure, trade, military), and somehow, whether or not a woman wants to kill her unborn child is of little concern to me on a national level. That is something that should be decided by her religious beliefs or where she chooses to live and raise her family. I meat so many female vegetarians that don't want to kill a cow to eat it, that I can not imagine a woman aborting a baby because its FUN.
Women typically have a reason, and if we want to stop abortions there are so many pieces to the puzzle that making abortions illegal will not stop them.
If the reasons are economic, then we need to give single mothers more help.
If the reason is emotional in the case of rape and inceast, we need to be understanding to let them choose.
If the reason is medical, and life threatening, the moral lines are gray at best anyways.
If it was done as the result of a carefree sexual behavior, stopping abortions are not going to stop pre-martial sex. Heck I bet many of us on this forum are 1st borns and very well might be the result of a opps between two unmarried lovers.
It really pains me that we can become so easily divided on a topic that is so personal and so hard to be black and white on.
I really wish there were more political options than YES or NO.
I'm with you here. Besides it being a matter of the majority tyrannizing a tiny minority (same with same-sex marriage), while I can see how people can feel strongly about it, I'm surprised they really feel it is so important that it should trump issues affecting their own daily lives like economy, health care and the environment.
You are surprised probably because you either do not understand their position or do not believe they honestly hold that view.
Abortion opponents tend to believe unborn babies are living humans. This implies abortion is the murder of a baby. Hence, legalized abortion is enabling the murder of millions, i.e. genocide.
Is it really surprising that people consider genocide here in America to be a larger issue than the economy?
Note: I'm not going to argue this idea one way or the other, no one will change their mind. Just pointing out that if you understand the logic of abortion opponents, a fanatical opposition to abortion is quite understandable.
Abortion opponents tend to believe unborn babies are living humans. This implies abortion is the murder of a baby. Hence, legalized abortion is enabling the murder of millions, i.e. genocide.
Is it really surprising that people consider genocide here in America to be a larger issue than the economy?
Note: I'm not going to argue this idea one way or the other, no one will change their mind. Just pointing out that if you understand the logic of abortion opponents, a fanatical opposition to abortion is quite understandable.
its surprising that people continually choose arguments that are mono cultural. its a big world out there and societies have existed for millennia in a number of ways. its just hard to fathom that in a country that honors the freedom of religion, that we still do not get poly culturalism.
I would like justices that interpret the Constitution as written, and sadly liberal justices don't seem to have any concern for that.
Vote if it makes you feel good---whether out of a sense of participation, obligation, or duty. But don't kid yourself that you're "making a difference". The probability that your vote makes any difference is negligible. And please don't give people who don't vote a hard time; theirs is arguably the more rational choice, so there's no need to be self-righteous about it. (I am voting, BTW, but mainly to have an answer to the question "Who did you vote for?" I have to admit that feels a little cowardly.)
The probability that your vote makes any difference is negligible.
On the contrary: On any given issue, my vote cancels out a vote on the other side. That's a pretty important role. Without my vote, my side's excess votes would fail to carry the day.
The only way to have one's vote fail to "make a difference" is by finding someone who votes exactly opposite to you on every issue and making a pact with them not to vote. But you have to make sure they don't sneak off and vote when you're not looking. All in all, it's a lot easier to just cast a ballot.
On the contrary: On any given issue, my vote cancels out a vote on the other side. That's a pretty important role. Without my vote, my side's excess votes would fail to carry the day.
The only way to have one's vote fail to "make a difference" is by finding someone who votes exactly opposite to you on every issue and making a pact with them not to vote. But you have to make sure they don't sneak off and vote when you're not looking. All in all, it's a lot easier to just cast a ballot.
Sure, if you are a member of the two parties that make up the US political system.
If you are not a member of those two parties, your vote holds no worth within the political system. The two major parties normally dismiss or deride issues made by the green or libertarian parties. In some cases, it is possible that my vote outside the two party system can cause the person I least prefer to be elected. Yay!
Until the US abolishes the electoral college and institutes a more representative election system such as an approval or preferential system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting), I will continue to be dissatisfied with voting for the president.
If you are not a member of those two parties, your vote holds no worth within the political system. The two major parties normally dismiss or deride issues made by the green or libertarian parties. In some cases, it is possible that my vote outside the two party system can cause the person I least prefer to be elected. Yay!
Until the US abolishes the electoral college and institutes a more representative election system such as an approval or preferential system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting), I will continue to be dissatisfied with voting for the president.
Preferential voting probably won't work. I think the two-party system is a bit of a result of culture: we feel the need to shoehorn every political issue into an "us" vs. "them" debate.
Don't forget, however, that there have been third parties in the past that have been popular enough to carry states. Unfortunately, they are generally one-trick ponies that are only present in a single election.
Examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_194... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_191...
Don't forget, however, that there have been third parties in the past that have been popular enough to carry states. Unfortunately, they are generally one-trick ponies that are only present in a single election.
Examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_194... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_191...
Why do you think it won't work? And what about approval voting?
The probability that your vote makes any difference is negligible.
On any given issue, my vote cancels out a vote on the other side.
There is no conflict between these two statements, but only one is relevant to a rational decision to vote. "Canceling" a vote is irrelevant unless the margin of victory is ~1 vote. When there are ~10^6-10^7 voters in a typical state, the probability that this is the case is, alas, << 1.
On any given issue, my vote cancels out a vote on the other side.
There is no conflict between these two statements, but only one is relevant to a rational decision to vote. "Canceling" a vote is irrelevant unless the margin of victory is ~1 vote. When there are ~10^6-10^7 voters in a typical state, the probability that this is the case is, alas, << 1.
The odds are your vote won't make a difference. But there's a chance, however remote, that it might make a huge difference. That's reason enough for me.
If you are an idiot, please do not vote.
Or at least vote for my candidate of choice!
I think idiot's voting for your candidate is corrosive to that political party. Take republicans and farm subsidies they are directly in opposition to most of the "core" principles of personal accountability, free trade, less government etc but try and find a republican in Idaho that does not support them.
That's not a product of idiots voting. It's a product of compromise.
The US system, favours a binary choice. You vote A or B. Australia (where I live) is even more this way. It's a stable sort of a system. Governments are fairly powerful. There is less need for the shaky post election coalitions of different systems. But it comes at a cost: Compromise.
Republicans (from what we hear down here) get votes from social/moral conservatives, religious conservatives, social libertarians, nationalists, militarists, & lots of other subgroups. Then you get these smelted into traditional voter groups. So an rural area in some part of the US with a certain religious, moral, social & historic heritage might be generally sympathetic towards a militarist, nationalist, socially conservative & religious party. In the US of 2008, this is the Republicans.
Along comes a decade where the region stands to gain from certain policies. For technical reasons, these policies are at odds with the part of a political theory at the centre of their parties history. This is the part of the political theory that supports less government intervention in their lives, a lot of freedom over their property, personal lives, & a lot of other stuff that they like. But the link between economic policy & individual liberty is very academic. They just want the damned price of canola to stay put.
Under a different political system (say Italy's), this issue could cause a party split. Lets say, the ICP (Idaho Conservatives Party) is formed. They put a bit more emphasis on this & a bit less on that but stay close to the former party line. The difference is they support the subsidies which benefit their voters. They join the coalition that the Republicans now need to form government because three of four of these parties split. This allows the ICP to focus mostly on subsidies & a few other issues that are important to their electorate.
The ICP is free to say they mostly leave issues other then sex education, subsidies & genetic patenting to the Republicans. The Republicans are free to admit that they don't like subsidy A, but it's a small price to pay to form Government. Otherwise they would have to get a different party on board with different compromises or reform the government. Theoretically, this allows parties to stay loyal to core principals.
Deals get done either way. The US's system is more stable. But you could argue it's less Democratic. Minority opinions are under represented. Voters make bigger compromises & get a less granular control over what their vote means. This is probably felt more now that there are several divisive issues on the agenda.
The US system, favours a binary choice. You vote A or B. Australia (where I live) is even more this way. It's a stable sort of a system. Governments are fairly powerful. There is less need for the shaky post election coalitions of different systems. But it comes at a cost: Compromise.
Republicans (from what we hear down here) get votes from social/moral conservatives, religious conservatives, social libertarians, nationalists, militarists, & lots of other subgroups. Then you get these smelted into traditional voter groups. So an rural area in some part of the US with a certain religious, moral, social & historic heritage might be generally sympathetic towards a militarist, nationalist, socially conservative & religious party. In the US of 2008, this is the Republicans.
Along comes a decade where the region stands to gain from certain policies. For technical reasons, these policies are at odds with the part of a political theory at the centre of their parties history. This is the part of the political theory that supports less government intervention in their lives, a lot of freedom over their property, personal lives, & a lot of other stuff that they like. But the link between economic policy & individual liberty is very academic. They just want the damned price of canola to stay put.
Under a different political system (say Italy's), this issue could cause a party split. Lets say, the ICP (Idaho Conservatives Party) is formed. They put a bit more emphasis on this & a bit less on that but stay close to the former party line. The difference is they support the subsidies which benefit their voters. They join the coalition that the Republicans now need to form government because three of four of these parties split. This allows the ICP to focus mostly on subsidies & a few other issues that are important to their electorate.
The ICP is free to say they mostly leave issues other then sex education, subsidies & genetic patenting to the Republicans. The Republicans are free to admit that they don't like subsidy A, but it's a small price to pay to form Government. Otherwise they would have to get a different party on board with different compromises or reform the government. Theoretically, this allows parties to stay loyal to core principals.
Deals get done either way. The US's system is more stable. But you could argue it's less Democratic. Minority opinions are under represented. Voters make bigger compromises & get a less granular control over what their vote means. This is probably felt more now that there are several divisive issues on the agenda.
Just FYI, there are (at least in the US) multiple meanings of "social libertarian". Most people I know that would use that label for themselves are closer to being a classical anarchist or socialist, and do not vote Republican.
The government represents dimwits too, you know. They usually form a key constituency.
It's my first time voting in a major election. Ever since I was a young lad I dreamed of voting. Every election I vote, city council, state, federal, whatever I vote. I take the 20mins to Google and find out what I need and make a decision.
If you say "Who cares anyways one vote isn't going to matter" think of it this way.One rain drop doesn't create or fill a river, but a million together do. Every time you exercise your rights to vote you add a small drop.
If you say "Who cares anyways one vote isn't going to matter" think of it this way.One rain drop doesn't create or fill a river, but a million together do. Every time you exercise your rights to vote you add a small drop.
And to all the non-Americans on HN -- myself among them -- please don't forget to post a reminder to your fellow countrymen/women on HN to vote if your country is having an election. I'm sure all the people who upvoted this post will be super-pumped to see that at the top of the homepage! Some other TellHN topics that I'd like to see in the future:
- Just say no to drungs - Don't drink and drive - Have your pets spayed and neutered
I'm Canadian, and I'm just giving you guys a hard time ;-)
Actually, I think most Canadians are a bit jealous because we just had an election that was a huge waste of money and didn't mean a damn thing. I have to admin, yours is way more interesting.
- Just say no to drungs - Don't drink and drive - Have your pets spayed and neutered
I'm Canadian, and I'm just giving you guys a hard time ;-)
Actually, I think most Canadians are a bit jealous because we just had an election that was a huge waste of money and didn't mean a damn thing. I have to admin, yours is way more interesting.
I think Hacker News is now officially looking down and seeing a shark pass below.
I am not too concerned if singular special events end up on HN. There are not enough events of that scope to pose a threat (I presume).
It's just the clicheness of it that bothers me. Nobody in the country needs a reminder. It's the same with all the various holiday messages.
At least we also had the "don't vote" counterpoint by freakonomics.
I don't really like blind calls to vote. If you don't have an educated opinion, or even an inkling based on a gut reaction of character, don't vote.
I thought this was going to be a plea about how to keep crappy stories off the front page.
Your vote will make no difference. Statistically, you have a better chance of winning the Powerball lottery than making a difference with your vote.
Voting is not "speaking for yourself". You are allowed to speak one of two things, neither of which may be what you want to say.
You do have the power to change things and make the world a better place, but not through the political process.
If you stay home from the polls and use that time to read to a child or help an old lady carry groceries, you will have done more good for the world than if you spent the morning voting.
Most of the good things in this world, our vast cultural heritage and our technological richness, have not been generated through the voting booth. If you want to contribute to the material and spiritual wealth of our species, you will find your efforts best spent elsewhere.
If you buy into the hype and feel compelled to vote for the entertainment aspect of it, don't pretend that you are better than those who did not. You aren't.
When the officials you vote for harm other people through their actions in office, those people have the right to complain, even if they did not vote. Morality is not overridden by democracy.
Voting is not "speaking for yourself". You are allowed to speak one of two things, neither of which may be what you want to say.
You do have the power to change things and make the world a better place, but not through the political process.
If you stay home from the polls and use that time to read to a child or help an old lady carry groceries, you will have done more good for the world than if you spent the morning voting.
Most of the good things in this world, our vast cultural heritage and our technological richness, have not been generated through the voting booth. If you want to contribute to the material and spiritual wealth of our species, you will find your efforts best spent elsewhere.
If you buy into the hype and feel compelled to vote for the entertainment aspect of it, don't pretend that you are better than those who did not. You aren't.
When the officials you vote for harm other people through their actions in office, those people have the right to complain, even if they did not vote. Morality is not overridden by democracy.
I presume you will be staying home and reading to a child instead of voting today? You're a much better person than everyone else on the internet. If only the whole world was like you, we'd have completely eliminated everything wrong with society by now.
I will be voting, but I acknowledge that it is purely for entertainment value and that I am not changing the world and that I am not morally better than those that do not vote. In fact, many of them are probably morally better than I.
Of course, if everyone except for you didn't vote, then your one vote would mean a lot more. If everyone except for you and me didn't vote, then our votes would still have significant value. If everyone except for you and me and ten others didn't vote, then...
...well, somewhere along the line, do our votes really stop mattering? A vote for X amid thousands of votes for Y doesn't mean much, but if all of the Y voters figured their votes didn't matter and stayed home, then the one vote for X would be pretty important.
That said, I fully expect that my one vote won't make any difference in how things turn out, but I still feel compelled to cast it. For the democracy to function as intended, we ought have as many valid votes as possible; for me to expect votes from others but not vote myself simply because my one vote doesn't matter would be absurd.
...well, somewhere along the line, do our votes really stop mattering? A vote for X amid thousands of votes for Y doesn't mean much, but if all of the Y voters figured their votes didn't matter and stayed home, then the one vote for X would be pretty important.
That said, I fully expect that my one vote won't make any difference in how things turn out, but I still feel compelled to cast it. For the democracy to function as intended, we ought have as many valid votes as possible; for me to expect votes from others but not vote myself simply because my one vote doesn't matter would be absurd.
Most of the ways that people rationalize their voting behavior can also be modified to rationalize the purchase of lottery tickets.
[deleted]
Throwing this out there:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/magazine/06freak.html?page...
Fascinating it is, but there's already been a post on it today. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=352540
Yea, I couldn't find the link fast enough. Thanks.
Anyway, I think it belongs in the flow of this discussion as well.
Anyway, I think it belongs in the flow of this discussion as well.
But also realize one of the great things about living in a free country, even with all of America's faults, is the ability to exercise your right _not_ to vote.
In Australia we have compulsory voting. Everybody has to get off their arse and do it (or at least go to a polling place, take a ballot sheet and stick it in a box, you can leave it blank or draw a penis on it if you want).
Personally I see both upside and downsides to it. On one hand it's a violation of my right not to vote, but on the other hand that's one of the more minor violations which the government by necessity commits anyway. The upside is that it leads to more moderate politics -- there's no need for the parties to appease the "base", so they always wind up fighting in the centre.
Personally I see both upside and downsides to it. On one hand it's a violation of my right not to vote, but on the other hand that's one of the more minor violations which the government by necessity commits anyway. The upside is that it leads to more moderate politics -- there's no need for the parties to appease the "base", so they always wind up fighting in the centre.
Because it is compulsory, it is also very easy to vote in Australia.
Most people can walk to their local school, community hall etc. There are places to vote absolutely everywhere.
There are no queues to vote. You just walk in and vote. This year, I queued for the first time ever. there were four people in front of me, I had to wait maybe twenty seconds.
Voting is always held on Saturday
Most people can walk to their local school, community hall etc. There are places to vote absolutely everywhere.
There are no queues to vote. You just walk in and vote. This year, I queued for the first time ever. there were four people in front of me, I had to wait maybe twenty seconds.
Voting is always held on Saturday
I'm guessing that the no-queueing is also due to the nice low-tech pencil-and-paper voting solution we have. I have no idea how many voting machines are at a typical US polling place, but I'm sure they can't serve nearly as many people in parallel as the Australian style little cardboard booths, where any decent-size polling place will have dozens of people voting in parallel. The bottleneck is at the place where they look up your name in a giant book (never a computer!) but I've never had to wait more than a few minutes there either.
But if you have to be forced to vote, how much could you know about the issues? My vote is worth more at 1/130 million than at 1/300 million. Still pretty small, but I'd rather that than be swamped by people who haven't a clue (even though many are that way already).
How does being forced to vote preclude you being informed about the issues?
Furthermore, it doesn't really sound like they're forced to vote - it sounds like they're forced to drop a piece of paper in a box that may or may not express a vote.
Furthermore, it doesn't really sound like they're forced to vote - it sounds like they're forced to drop a piece of paper in a box that may or may not express a vote.
Isn't 1 vote per person just mob rule though? You end up with the lowest common denominator...
Doesn't it sort of irritate the hell out of you if you're informed, voting for the best interests of the country and future, while someone next to you is voting because the candidate has a nice smile or has the same first name as them.
Maybe you get a vote when you can answer a few simple questions to prove you actually have a clue what you are voting for etc.
You wouldn't run a company by giving an apprentice the same voting rights in decisions as the CEO.
Personally I think there's a lot to be said for having a monarchy.
I know these views are probably completely counter to most people, but that's life... Thought I'd give my 2c.
Doesn't it sort of irritate the hell out of you if you're informed, voting for the best interests of the country and future, while someone next to you is voting because the candidate has a nice smile or has the same first name as them.
Maybe you get a vote when you can answer a few simple questions to prove you actually have a clue what you are voting for etc.
You wouldn't run a company by giving an apprentice the same voting rights in decisions as the CEO.
Personally I think there's a lot to be said for having a monarchy.
I know these views are probably completely counter to most people, but that's life... Thought I'd give my 2c.
Also, if you can, try to vote in the middle of the day to both alleviate and avoid long lines. They say 9am-3pm is the least-busy time.
We live in interesting times.
(1/2 of the possible results of an ancient Chinese curse. I think.)
We all know that voting is statistically meaningless--in fact, even if the vote comes down 50.0 million to 50.0 million, the actual result will be decided by whoever has the better lawyer in the inevitable supreme court spectacle.
So really, the only value is in the psychological effect voting has on yourself. Libertarians sometimes say "Don't vote" for this very reason, because voting makes you a participant in a corrupt system. (It's a standard brainwashing tactic to get people to say things they don't believe. Even if they know they don't believe, the honorable sense of "keeping one's word" overwhelms reason.)
Therefore, 3rd party votes are completely legitimate, since elections are pyschologically valid and mathematically pointless.
(1/2 of the possible results of an ancient Chinese curse. I think.)
We all know that voting is statistically meaningless--in fact, even if the vote comes down 50.0 million to 50.0 million, the actual result will be decided by whoever has the better lawyer in the inevitable supreme court spectacle.
So really, the only value is in the psychological effect voting has on yourself. Libertarians sometimes say "Don't vote" for this very reason, because voting makes you a participant in a corrupt system. (It's a standard brainwashing tactic to get people to say things they don't believe. Even if they know they don't believe, the honorable sense of "keeping one's word" overwhelms reason.)
Therefore, 3rd party votes are completely legitimate, since elections are pyschologically valid and mathematically pointless.
Voting is not statistically meaningless. Voting gives us a good way to judge where the majority of the nation wants to go. Just because your vote doesn't decide the election does not mean that your vote is meaningless. It carries the same weight as mine, McCain's, or Obama's. This is a good thing.
Yeah, it is. Math is funny that way. In fact, it is probably a net-negative activity to drive across town to purchase a lottery ticket for 0 (zero) dollars that has a 100 million dollar payoff at 1:100,000,000 odds. Why? Because the time/energy expenditure of driving across town itself is a cost in excess of the likely returns. Voting is the same way, except you get somewhat less than 100M if you win.
And, if there's confusion, I'm talking about individuals voting, not groups. This is why sending large checks to favored candidates is not meaningless. It can sway many people, ultimately.
And, if there's confusion, I'm talking about individuals voting, not groups. This is why sending large checks to favored candidates is not meaningless. It can sway many people, ultimately.
Yeah I'm not sure the last 2 elections actually went with the popular vote. Was voting in the last 2 elections worthwhile? I'm not convinced.
Isn't this a bit like saying the kinetic theory of gases is statistically meaningless? Even if the motion of individual gas molecules is pretty random, we can measure and learn something about the direction and speed of the gas as a whole that is not random at all.
If Obama, for instance, wins 330-208 in the electoral vote and 52-44 in the popular vote, we can hardly call those statistically insignificant margins below the noise floor.
If Obama, for instance, wins 330-208 in the electoral vote and 52-44 in the popular vote, we can hardly call those statistically insignificant margins below the noise floor.
That's why I wrote in a vote for the Ron Paul/Hypnotoad ticket.
Dear Texas, THANKS FOR NOT SENDING MY ABSENTEE BALLOT! I don't know how many forms I filled out, but you never sent me a ballot. I have my voter registration card here and everything. Short of an 800 mile roadtrip or standby flight home, looks like I'll be sitting this one out. :-/
The best reason to vote is not that your vote will change the election, its that the process of voting will change you.
It causes you to consider the problems in your society and be aware of proposed solutions. Sounding your voice is just as important as being heard.
It causes you to consider the problems in your society and be aware of proposed solutions. Sounding your voice is just as important as being heard.
Lots of people vote without considering anything at all, or without being aware of proposed solutions.
Hell, I'd guess that the majority of voters yesterday were not very well informed about any of the proposed solutions.
Hell, I'd guess that the majority of voters yesterday were not very well informed about any of the proposed solutions.
I find it amusing that a popularity contest (and one not really different from a high school one in any significant way) is used to decide who will take charge of a country.
I am also impressed to see otherwise intelligent people defending this scheme, and honestly believing it to be a great one or even claiming there is not better alternative.
I am also impressed to see otherwise intelligent people defending this scheme, and honestly believing it to be a great one or even claiming there is not better alternative.
Yes please just show up and fill in a bubble for either of the candidates likely to win. You too can help legitimize both the appointment of a president who only has support from 35% of the population, and the process of using machines which will change your vote when it actually matters!
I think you're lost. It sounds like you're looking for www.reddit.com
What's the difference between reddit and HN with blatant political topics such as this one? Normally I avoid feeding political comments on HN, but with this submission it seems any decency has gone out the window.
I'm going to the polls tomorrow due to tradition and ease of conversation. But if one's default action is to stay home, they'll get more done by sticking with that. Hackers change the world by writing code, not by checking a box and hoping that somehow this time will be different.
I'm going to the polls tomorrow due to tradition and ease of conversation. But if one's default action is to stay home, they'll get more done by sticking with that. Hackers change the world by writing code, not by checking a box and hoping that somehow this time will be different.
You're right, and I think this whole submission and thread of comments illustrates exactly why political topics are typically avoided on Hacker News. It quickly devolves into sarcastic comments, and more sarcastic comments poking fun at the original sarcastic comments.
Your comment was just very similar to the things I'm used to seeing on Reddit, but not Hacker News.
Anyway, I'm looking forward the elections being over and Hacker News hopefully going back to it's good old self of mostly technology and entrepreneurial related posts.
Your comment was just very similar to the things I'm used to seeing on Reddit, but not Hacker News.
Anyway, I'm looking forward the elections being over and Hacker News hopefully going back to it's good old self of mostly technology and entrepreneurial related posts.
Haven't we already voted in a poll from PG http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=349421 asking "Allow stories about the election?", with 49 yes and 218 no when I last checked?
Wish I could vote, I've suffered though the campaigns just as much as any American, and lets face it — what ever the US does, the rest of the world follows.
But if I could...it'd be for Obama.
But if I could...it'd be for Obama.
I hope the UK pays half as much interest in the next General Election as there has been over the US election.
Unfortunately I don't believe we have any candidates half as compelling at Obama.
Unfortunately I don't believe we have any candidates half as compelling at Obama.
If I were an american I'd vote. You guys need a change.
[deleted]
Go vote! If you guys can stand in lines for a xbox 360 and iphone you can stand in line to vote.
I wonder what the headlines will be tommorow. If I were an editor, I'd go for one of these tabloid headlines in 24pt font, depending on who wins:
Bradley Baloney!
Obama in Power!
McCain upsets Again!
Blowout!
Guess who's coming to the White House?
Bradley Baloney!
Obama in Power!
McCain upsets Again!
Blowout!
Guess who's coming to the White House?
[deleted]
Not voting.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H. L. Mencken
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H. L. Mencken
Too late! I already early voted. Do all states have early voting or just some?
Done.
Although I intend on voting tomorrow, I don't agree that it's a "duty" to vote. In fact, I usually don't vote in local elections if I don't have substantial knowledge about the candidates, and given that I've moved about 10 times in the last 6 years, that's often. (The top few Google hits do not amount to "substantial knowledge".) The purpose of voting is value discovery (analogous to "price discovery" in financial markets) but if I'm not able to evaluate the candidates, I'm not really assisting in that process; I'm just adding noise. I think that a major reason the two-party system exists is that a significant number of people vote based on party "brand name" without evaluating the individual candidates.
(I have to give you a really bad notice: Obama is not Christ. So please don't expect too much from politics.)
Not just vote -- vote for Obama!!!
Don't just vote; vote Obama.
What about Nader, McKinney, etc?
Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles.
[unmasks them] [audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[murmurs]
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
[Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat]
[unmasks them] [audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[murmurs]
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
[Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat]
I say my opponent's 2% tax goes too far!
And I say my opponent's 2% tax doesn't go too far enough!
And I say my opponent's 2% tax doesn't go too far enough!
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
The executioner? Or the Simpsons guy?
The Python Regex Debugger.
I was going to vote for him.
But I just had a hard time evaluating it all.
But I just had a hard time evaluating it all.
Abortions for none!
Boooooooo!
Alright. Abortions for all!
Boooooooo!
Alright. Abortions for some. Miniature American flags for others!
Yaaaaaaaaaaay!
Boooooooo!
Alright. Abortions for all!
Boooooooo!
Alright. Abortions for some. Miniature American flags for others!
Yaaaaaaaaaaay!
I really don't understand the Obama-ness of HN. I'm certainly not busting my ass working on my business just to see Obama "spread my wealth around".
I understand the realities of having a progressive tax system, but Obama crosses a line with me when he is going to tax the rich just to hand it straight over to everyone else in $1000 cash increments. At least in the past the Democrats wanted to buy the poor $1000 in fishing equipment instead of handing out $1000 worth of fish. His plan is the very definition of Marxism.
I understand the realities of having a progressive tax system, but Obama crosses a line with me when he is going to tax the rich just to hand it straight over to everyone else in $1000 cash increments. At least in the past the Democrats wanted to buy the poor $1000 in fishing equipment instead of handing out $1000 worth of fish. His plan is the very definition of Marxism.
"[39.6 per cent] is what it would be under Obama's proposal, what it was under President Clinton, and, for that matter, what it will be after 2010 if President Bush's tax cuts expire on schedule."
"During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC's 'Hardball,' a young woman asked [McCain] why her father, a doctor, should be 'penalized' by being 'in a huge tax bracket.' McCain replied that 'wealthy people can afford more' and that 'the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don't pay nearly as much as you think they do.' The exchange continued:
YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?...
MCCAIN: Here's what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more"
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_...
"During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC's 'Hardball,' a young woman asked [McCain] why her father, a doctor, should be 'penalized' by being 'in a huge tax bracket.' McCain replied that 'wealthy people can afford more' and that 'the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don't pay nearly as much as you think they do.' The exchange continued:
YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?...
MCCAIN: Here's what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more"
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_...
Right, I understand that it is to be expected that the rich will pay more under a progressive tax system. I have mixed feelings about this, but am generally ok about it.
The difference between Clinton and Obama is that Clinton didn't hand my hard earned cash directly over to anybody else. Instead he spend money on technical skills training or food stamps for the poor.
The difference between Clinton and Obama is that Clinton didn't hand my hard earned cash directly over to anybody else. Instead he spend money on technical skills training or food stamps for the poor.
Then what does that make McCain's $5,000 health care tax credit?
mccain also voted for the relief checks...
I wasn't a fan of the relief checks and am not thrilled about McCain. But at least you had to pay taxes in order to get a relief check.
i just went digging into all materials i could find on this issue.
from what i can tell, the $500-1k proposed stimulus and tax rebate is, essentially, the exact same thing as the last one. information will be based on 2007 tax reports. you must have previously paid taxes to obtain a check, just like the last round.
i'm not 100% clear on how this check factors into your 2008 taxes, but from the looks of it, it might act as, essentially, a retroactive tax cut from 2007. if you paid your taxes last year, you'll get another check.
but i'm not an expert and would like to see any information showing something contrary to what i've just said.
from what i can tell, the $500-1k proposed stimulus and tax rebate is, essentially, the exact same thing as the last one. information will be based on 2007 tax reports. you must have previously paid taxes to obtain a check, just like the last round.
i'm not 100% clear on how this check factors into your 2008 taxes, but from the looks of it, it might act as, essentially, a retroactive tax cut from 2007. if you paid your taxes last year, you'll get another check.
but i'm not an expert and would like to see any information showing something contrary to what i've just said.
You must have filed a tax return. 40% of people already don't pay income tax. His plan would still give them the $1000 check. And for the record, the first rebate program was a bunch of crap too.
What about the Child Tax Credit? Same thing. The goal is to ensure a better quality of life for the children.
Also, any increase in taxes is really for very few. In addition to my startup I also own two retail clothing stores that gross over $1.5mm each year. Yet, my share of the net profit is below $250k.
Then there is the health care deduction. I would get that deduction for all of the employees I am already providing health insurance for.
And what about Obama's proposal to eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses? I haven't seen the details, but the only way for a small business to incur capital gains taxes is by selling assets. I would think a bunch of people working to create companies that they can possibly sell for a large sum would be in favor of eliminating that tax.
Also, any increase in taxes is really for very few. In addition to my startup I also own two retail clothing stores that gross over $1.5mm each year. Yet, my share of the net profit is below $250k.
Then there is the health care deduction. I would get that deduction for all of the employees I am already providing health insurance for.
And what about Obama's proposal to eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses? I haven't seen the details, but the only way for a small business to incur capital gains taxes is by selling assets. I would think a bunch of people working to create companies that they can possibly sell for a large sum would be in favor of eliminating that tax.
His plan is the very definition of Marxism
His plan is to seize the means of production and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat? Can we get a citation on that?
His plan is to seize the means of production and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat? Can we get a citation on that?
here are a few points worth considering:
all tax systems are "spreading the wealth around" unless they're a flat tax system.
obama is proposing a top tax bracket of 39.6%. under the "conservative lord and savior" ronald reagan, the top tax bracket paid 70%. that was eventually lowered to 50%.
sarah palin presides over a state that siphons money from oil companies and uses it to cut checks to their citizens. this year's check was, iirc, for $3200. in addition, alaska is #1 in the country for pork barrel spending, leading the #2 state (arizona, [un?]ironically) by approx. 2500%.
on the y2k campaign, john mccain, when asked about why the questioner's father (a doctor) pays a higher percentage in taxes than others, said this : "Look, here's what I really believe: That when you are, when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."
almost every person in the top 10 richest americans (not all were asked) stated that the current tax system unfairly favors the top. that includes warren buffet and bill gates.
all tax systems are "spreading the wealth around" unless they're a flat tax system.
obama is proposing a top tax bracket of 39.6%. under the "conservative lord and savior" ronald reagan, the top tax bracket paid 70%. that was eventually lowered to 50%.
sarah palin presides over a state that siphons money from oil companies and uses it to cut checks to their citizens. this year's check was, iirc, for $3200. in addition, alaska is #1 in the country for pork barrel spending, leading the #2 state (arizona, [un?]ironically) by approx. 2500%.
on the y2k campaign, john mccain, when asked about why the questioner's father (a doctor) pays a higher percentage in taxes than others, said this : "Look, here's what I really believe: That when you are, when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."
almost every person in the top 10 richest americans (not all were asked) stated that the current tax system unfairly favors the top. that includes warren buffet and bill gates.
I would add that even a flat tax would "spread the wealth around," since there's no way to insure that you reap the exact benefit of what you're taxed (unless the government were to simply hand back all of your taxes.) A simple example: public education doesn't benefit the child free in the same way that it benefits those with children (though I would argue that it does so indirectly.)
That, and the value of money should not be evaluated solely in terms of its numerical value. 100$ is much more valuable to someone on the edge of poverty than it is to a millionaire. (Ie, Marginal utility.) In that sense, flat taxes are generally considered regressive.
That, and the value of money should not be evaluated solely in terms of its numerical value. 100$ is much more valuable to someone on the edge of poverty than it is to a millionaire. (Ie, Marginal utility.) In that sense, flat taxes are generally considered regressive.
Taking tax revenues and spending it on projects that benefit the entire society is not "spreading the wealth around". The rich who paid extra taxes in the 80's and 90's benefited from a more skilled and educated populace.
This is stark contrast to what Obama wants to do: take an extra $50000 from a single rich person and giving $1000 in CASH to 50 poor people. Unless the rich person owns stock in malt liquor and plasma television companies, they won't be benefiting at all.
Alaska doesn't "siphon" money off of the oil companies. The oil that the oil companies are extracting is the property of the citizens of Alaska. Alaska is cutting checks to its citizens for what they are properly owed in exchange for their property.
This is stark contrast to what Obama wants to do: take an extra $50000 from a single rich person and giving $1000 in CASH to 50 poor people. Unless the rich person owns stock in malt liquor and plasma television companies, they won't be benefiting at all.
Alaska doesn't "siphon" money off of the oil companies. The oil that the oil companies are extracting is the property of the citizens of Alaska. Alaska is cutting checks to its citizens for what they are properly owed in exchange for their property.
ok, you disagree with obama's 500-$1k stimulus plan. thats cool, you have the right to not agree with it. but, to be clear, you don't like the entire platform based on this one thing?
in addition, the point would be to have the money stimulate the poor economy. buying booze and tvs would be the exact point of the checks going out. it would be, theoretically, "bad" if it were to be saved. japan did something similar but set it up so that the people were required to spend their money. like a governmental gift certificate.
also, you don't see anything marxist/communist about a state collectively owning a resource and divvying up profits equally to its citizens?
in addition, the point would be to have the money stimulate the poor economy. buying booze and tvs would be the exact point of the checks going out. it would be, theoretically, "bad" if it were to be saved. japan did something similar but set it up so that the people were required to spend their money. like a governmental gift certificate.
also, you don't see anything marxist/communist about a state collectively owning a resource and divvying up profits equally to its citizens?
His economic policy is the biggest thing that turns me off from Obama. He has also floated the idea of getting rid of the cap on payroll taxes which would turn Social Security from an insurance/retirement scheme to wealth redistribution scheme.
I'm also very pro second amendment and he has supported some pretty whacked out stuff in that regard. Supporting a bill that would ban all gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park (elminiating 99% of all gun stores in the country) pretty much says enough about that.
Obama wanting more government involvement in health care seems like a genuinely bad idea. Do you want the same type of people at the DMV to dictate what kind of health care you get?
I see nothing marxist about a country or a state owning a resource and divvying up its profits, as long as they didn't take it from someone who already had owned it. Alaska divvying up the profits from oil that sits underneath state owned land is completely different from Alaska taking land away from its owner and divvying up the profits.
I'm also very pro second amendment and he has supported some pretty whacked out stuff in that regard. Supporting a bill that would ban all gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park (elminiating 99% of all gun stores in the country) pretty much says enough about that.
Obama wanting more government involvement in health care seems like a genuinely bad idea. Do you want the same type of people at the DMV to dictate what kind of health care you get?
I see nothing marxist about a country or a state owning a resource and divvying up its profits, as long as they didn't take it from someone who already had owned it. Alaska divvying up the profits from oil that sits underneath state owned land is completely different from Alaska taking land away from its owner and divvying up the profits.
while i do agree that his economic policies aren't perfect, neither are mccain's, and neither are any past/present presidential candidates'.
i have a group of prominent economists and businessmen that i enjoy/follow/etc., and they unanimously point towards obama's economic policies as what is currently best for the country given the current economic climate.
i am very much willing to sacrifice a personal ideal or two if the country will get itself back on the right track. i tend to take a long view on things. short-term pain for long-term prosperity and goals is what i would prefer. don't want to see the country in a 10+ year malaise like japan after their housing market burst.
just my $0.02, though.
i have a group of prominent economists and businessmen that i enjoy/follow/etc., and they unanimously point towards obama's economic policies as what is currently best for the country given the current economic climate.
i am very much willing to sacrifice a personal ideal or two if the country will get itself back on the right track. i tend to take a long view on things. short-term pain for long-term prosperity and goals is what i would prefer. don't want to see the country in a 10+ year malaise like japan after their housing market burst.
just my $0.02, though.
-Because so much of society is regressive as it is. Considering that the guys who live around me who are stock brokers pay 28% capital gains tax for trading day in and day out rather than the 36% income tax that I have to pay, and they have to pay less for SS and Medicare as is than their secretaries.
-I have no fear of losing the 2nd amendment rights, after the supreme court ruling this year, and the NRA strength every year, it just isn't going to happen. This is FUD and even Obama himself hasn't said that in MONTHS.
-Does it seem like a bad idea? To me healthcare isn't a cost that is to be minimized, it is a beneifit to be maximized. That is really the difference between the two plans. Obama thinks everyone should have healthcare, McCain thinks we should spend less. Problem is, under McCain total cost of healthcare spending would be less, but per individual it would be higher.
And I really don't understand why anyone is allowed to NOT have insurance in this country. A lot of 20 y/o healthy adults have no insurance to avoid paying the premium. Fine, but when you are 50 they can get coverage? You not only have to spread the risk out among the people, but along their entire life. I'm not allowed to take car insurance out for only the rainy days, why are you allowed to take out health care insurance when you pick and choose, and the familes who plug along year after year with it get stuck with a higher bill each month?
-The state of alaska didn't buy that land from canada, the United States federal government did and gave it to alaska. Yet the state gets to charge a tax that raises the price for fuel for the rest of us. It was the lower 48's money that bought the oil, and it is the lower 48's money that is subsidizing the state today.
-I have no fear of losing the 2nd amendment rights, after the supreme court ruling this year, and the NRA strength every year, it just isn't going to happen. This is FUD and even Obama himself hasn't said that in MONTHS.
-Does it seem like a bad idea? To me healthcare isn't a cost that is to be minimized, it is a beneifit to be maximized. That is really the difference between the two plans. Obama thinks everyone should have healthcare, McCain thinks we should spend less. Problem is, under McCain total cost of healthcare spending would be less, but per individual it would be higher.
And I really don't understand why anyone is allowed to NOT have insurance in this country. A lot of 20 y/o healthy adults have no insurance to avoid paying the premium. Fine, but when you are 50 they can get coverage? You not only have to spread the risk out among the people, but along their entire life. I'm not allowed to take car insurance out for only the rainy days, why are you allowed to take out health care insurance when you pick and choose, and the familes who plug along year after year with it get stuck with a higher bill each month?
-The state of alaska didn't buy that land from canada, the United States federal government did and gave it to alaska. Yet the state gets to charge a tax that raises the price for fuel for the rest of us. It was the lower 48's money that bought the oil, and it is the lower 48's money that is subsidizing the state today.
_The state of alaska didn't buy that land from canada, the United States federal government did and gave it to alaska_
Actually, they bought it from Russia (Canada didn't exist at that point). Alaska didn't immediately become a state either, it was administered by the federal gov't for nearly 100 years.
Actually, they bought it from Russia (Canada didn't exist at that point). Alaska didn't immediately become a state either, it was administered by the federal gov't for nearly 100 years.
"spread my wealth around"
Like with his proposal for 0% Capital Gains tax for Start-ups and Small Businesses? Man he's killin' you AND me with that one.
Like with his proposal for 0% Capital Gains tax for Start-ups and Small Businesses? Man he's killin' you AND me with that one.
FYI I'm fine with someone disagreeing and down voting my comment, but I would appreciate some sort of response if you do. I'd like to know why you think I'm wrong
"I understand the realities of having a progressive tax system, but Obama crosses a line with me when he is going to tax the rich just to hand it straight over to everyone else in $1000 cash increments."
We've all been funneling money into the pockets of rich people since the Bush tax cuts passed. McCain wants to extend them. For me, Obama is not so much crossing the line as uncrossing it.
Taking a policy like tax policy out of the historical context, you will always be able to label tax increases as socialist and tax decreases as anarchical. These labels mean nothing and pollute the discourse.
The correct question to ask is, what have our previous budget priorities taught us that we can use going forward? Should we, for instance, continue supply-side economics and the dogmas of market deregulation?
All politics about anything is about the redistribution of wealth.
(I didn't vote down your comment, incidentally. I reserve downvotes for forum abuse.)
We've all been funneling money into the pockets of rich people since the Bush tax cuts passed. McCain wants to extend them. For me, Obama is not so much crossing the line as uncrossing it.
Taking a policy like tax policy out of the historical context, you will always be able to label tax increases as socialist and tax decreases as anarchical. These labels mean nothing and pollute the discourse.
The correct question to ask is, what have our previous budget priorities taught us that we can use going forward? Should we, for instance, continue supply-side economics and the dogmas of market deregulation?
All politics about anything is about the redistribution of wealth.
(I didn't vote down your comment, incidentally. I reserve downvotes for forum abuse.)
Here's how you're wrong: Obama's platform is, for the most part, not that bad. The only real way to attack Obama is by guessing at what his real policies will be. This is very tricky and (to people with an existing predisposition) completely invalid.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?seci...
Obama's sympathies are not just "redistributionist" but genuinely communistic. His racial views are consistently nationalistic. Consistently. But...until he actually wields power (he has voted "present" over 100 times in his short Senate career) it's all speculation.
McCain, by constrast, would be crustily predictable.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?seci...
Obama's sympathies are not just "redistributionist" but genuinely communistic. His racial views are consistently nationalistic. Consistently. But...until he actually wields power (he has voted "present" over 100 times in his short Senate career) it's all speculation.
McCain, by constrast, would be crustily predictable.
Viggity,
This is my only comment on the matter, and I comment because, this voting system makes no sense and it's hard to use it as a feedback device.
People vote you up or down based on whether they want to look at your comment. This site is heavily Obama-ish -- I'm guessing 80% or so. There are some libertarians such as myself rambling around. Probably some Republicans too, but they're deep into some sort of witness protection program I guess. :)
You won't get a conversation. They'll just keep voting your comments into the mud.
Stupid, huh?
This is my only comment on the matter, and I comment because, this voting system makes no sense and it's hard to use it as a feedback device.
People vote you up or down based on whether they want to look at your comment. This site is heavily Obama-ish -- I'm guessing 80% or so. There are some libertarians such as myself rambling around. Probably some Republicans too, but they're deep into some sort of witness protection program I guess. :)
You won't get a conversation. They'll just keep voting your comments into the mud.
Stupid, huh?
I'll come out of the closet: I'm a Republican.
[Note: this post is poorly written from here on. Ignore it. I feel like fixing it would be rude to the responder, since it would make his post look nonsensical.]
Not going to vote tomorrow, though. My feeling is that more voters gives the process legitimacy, and I don't want to contribute that.
[Note: this post is poorly written from here on. Ignore it. I feel like fixing it would be rude to the responder, since it would make his post look nonsensical.]
Not going to vote tomorrow, though. My feeling is that more voters gives the process legitimacy, and I don't want to contribute that.
This is just an honest question.
If you aren't a fan of the political system, why do you affiliate yourself with a political party?
If you aren't a fan of the political system, why do you affiliate yourself with a political party?
Sorry, my statement was poorly written, a weird agglomeration of the two thoughts running through my head at the time I wrote it. My bad. Let me fix:
>Not going to vote tomorrow, though. My feeling is that more voters gives the winner legitimacy and a mandate, and since I hate the winner, I don't want to do that.
Anyway, I affiliate myself with the republicans because I agree with a many of their (old school, not Bush-era) positions. I also tend to vote republican in local races since NY/NJ democrats are hopelessly corrupt. However, since I now live in Harlem, even voting in local races is pointless.
>Not going to vote tomorrow, though. My feeling is that more voters gives the winner legitimacy and a mandate, and since I hate the winner, I don't want to do that.
Anyway, I affiliate myself with the republicans because I agree with a many of their (old school, not Bush-era) positions. I also tend to vote republican in local races since NY/NJ democrats are hopelessly corrupt. However, since I now live in Harlem, even voting in local races is pointless.
Libertarian beliefs do not presuppose a lack of Obama support.
Agreed.
Nor do they indicate a lack of McCain support.
That's why I love libertarians -- we're such a pain in the ass to everybody else.
Nor do they indicate a lack of McCain support.
That's why I love libertarians -- we're such a pain in the ass to everybody else.
Marx believed that the government should distribute goods, not money. Don't be silly.
Don't you use money to acquire goods?
Not always, no. Government rationing during WWII, for instance. You might want to broaden your horizons a bit, economically speaking. A capitalist with socialist leanings is nowhere near a Marxist, and you make yourself sound ridiculous by claiming otherwise.
Maybe you should look at the Colbert segment where he interviews the real Socialist candidate, ie the presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America, and see if he thinks Obama's plan is socialist.
Can I have a citation for your claim that Obama will directly give cash to the poor based on extra taxes raised on the rich?
Taken from http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/index.php
Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama and Biden will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama and Biden will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.
Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families:Barack Obama and Joe Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on the Obama-Biden long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.
Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama and Biden will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama and Biden will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.
Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families:Barack Obama and Joe Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on the Obama-Biden long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.
A "windfall profits tax" is a pretty slippery fucking slope.
Who decides what is "excessive". Fuck that. The margin on my software is several hundred percent, is that excessive? The margin on oil is 4-6%. Does that mean I'm super fucked?
Who decides what is "excessive". Fuck that. The margin on my software is several hundred percent, is that excessive? The margin on oil is 4-6%. Does that mean I'm super fucked?
Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families:
That's interesting, actually. A similar prospect was laughed out of British parliament not too long ago - a parliament far to the left of US tastes.
That's interesting, actually. A similar prospect was laughed out of British parliament not too long ago - a parliament far to the left of US tastes.
Although I was a trader at a hedge fund for just over a year, I'm not rich. I probably will be, in the future. The Republican argument is that liberal economics are worst not for the already rich, but for the middle-class people who are trying to get rich. Well, I'm one of those: middle-class background, likely to be wealthy one day on account of my talent and work ethic. I'm also liberal, and will vote for Obama tomorrow, and although I suspect he's center-left, I secretly hope he is somewhat of the socialist his detractors accuse him of being.
Why? I want a fair society, and a stable one. I don't want high levels of crime and unreliable health coverage. Nor do I want to feel guilty about enjoying my relative level of privilege. I don't want to be destroyed in the off chance that I'm unable to work due to illness or injury. I definitely don't want to see a violent revolution (much more probable than anyone wants to admit; given 20 more years of the 1980-2009(?) neofeudalism, I'd lay even odds on that one).
Frankly, whether the upper tax bracket is 35 or 39.6 percent is of little interest to me, given the much larger issues at stake. I'll gladly pay a few more percent in taxes, contingent upon positive fortune on my part, in order to live in a better, fairer, and safer society.
Also, here's why redistributive taxation fundamentally makes sense. Poor and middle-class people, in general, spend the bulk of their income on commodities-- food, clothing, consumer goods-- whose prices are set by material supply and demand. Doubling the incomes of the poor is going to enable them to purchase more of these commodities. The growth factor isn't 100%, since there will also be an increase the prices of these commodities (inflation) but it's fairly close-- no worse than 50%, I'd bet. So the poor peoples' standards of living increase if their incomes are doubled. Likewise, a 50% reduction in income will destroy many of them.
On the other hand, wealthy people tend to purchase status goods, such as jewelry, rare (usually shitty, but that's beside the point) art, and trophy real estate. If the wealthy are suddenly made twice as rich, the prices of all the Manhattan apartments and paint-factory-vomit "modern art" works would instantly double. The same would be true if their income were halved. As long as these individuals' relative rankings were unchanged, their standards of living would change only slightly. One exception might be for those who wish to purchase a rivate jet, since a major expenditure in that pursuit is oil, a commodity. So private jets might become less affordable. Boo-hoo. The truth is that you could increase the tax rates on the very rich ($2.5 million+ per year) to 80 percent and, although they would feel intense pain due to the numerical changes and perceived loss of status, their lifestyles wouldn't change substantially, due to price reductions for most of the things they care about.
Why? I want a fair society, and a stable one. I don't want high levels of crime and unreliable health coverage. Nor do I want to feel guilty about enjoying my relative level of privilege. I don't want to be destroyed in the off chance that I'm unable to work due to illness or injury. I definitely don't want to see a violent revolution (much more probable than anyone wants to admit; given 20 more years of the 1980-2009(?) neofeudalism, I'd lay even odds on that one).
Frankly, whether the upper tax bracket is 35 or 39.6 percent is of little interest to me, given the much larger issues at stake. I'll gladly pay a few more percent in taxes, contingent upon positive fortune on my part, in order to live in a better, fairer, and safer society.
Also, here's why redistributive taxation fundamentally makes sense. Poor and middle-class people, in general, spend the bulk of their income on commodities-- food, clothing, consumer goods-- whose prices are set by material supply and demand. Doubling the incomes of the poor is going to enable them to purchase more of these commodities. The growth factor isn't 100%, since there will also be an increase the prices of these commodities (inflation) but it's fairly close-- no worse than 50%, I'd bet. So the poor peoples' standards of living increase if their incomes are doubled. Likewise, a 50% reduction in income will destroy many of them.
On the other hand, wealthy people tend to purchase status goods, such as jewelry, rare (usually shitty, but that's beside the point) art, and trophy real estate. If the wealthy are suddenly made twice as rich, the prices of all the Manhattan apartments and paint-factory-vomit "modern art" works would instantly double. The same would be true if their income were halved. As long as these individuals' relative rankings were unchanged, their standards of living would change only slightly. One exception might be for those who wish to purchase a rivate jet, since a major expenditure in that pursuit is oil, a commodity. So private jets might become less affordable. Boo-hoo. The truth is that you could increase the tax rates on the very rich ($2.5 million+ per year) to 80 percent and, although they would feel intense pain due to the numerical changes and perceived loss of status, their lifestyles wouldn't change substantially, due to price reductions for most of the things they care about.
Plus jetting over to Europe and spending the money outside of our economy is a lot easier for the top 1% than the bottom 99.
It makes a lot more sense for anyone who owns a business to pay an extra 3% tax on a better economy, than save a little on taxes in exchange for a terrible economy. It seems like cutting your nose to spite your face.
The average guy making $300,000 a year and with a million dollars in the stock market saved $80,000 in taxes over the last 8 years, and lost $400,000 in the stock market in the last 2 months. Not a great trade.
It makes a lot more sense for anyone who owns a business to pay an extra 3% tax on a better economy, than save a little on taxes in exchange for a terrible economy. It seems like cutting your nose to spite your face.
The average guy making $300,000 a year and with a million dollars in the stock market saved $80,000 in taxes over the last 8 years, and lost $400,000 in the stock market in the last 2 months. Not a great trade.
The upper class can go without a few luxuries so that the lower class can actually afford necessities. Don't be such a selfish pussy.
Aside from your language, which violates board terms, can I point out that captialism, the thing that drives startups, is dependent on people acting in their best interests.
"Selfish" is a loaded, emotional, subjective term. Not something to base a policy on (and I don't think Obama or McCain is doing that)
"Selfish" is a loaded, emotional, subjective term. Not something to base a policy on (and I don't think Obama or McCain is doing that)
You contradict yourself. You're saying that politics has a place in my self-interest yet my self-interest doesn't have a place in politics.
Capitalism is based almost ENTIRELY on acting selfishly. However, as we can clearly see, people suffer greatly from the near literal implementation of capitalism. Therefore, there needs to be a system in place to help those people who have become victims of it.
Capitalism is based almost ENTIRELY on acting selfishly. However, as we can clearly see, people suffer greatly from the near literal implementation of capitalism. Therefore, there needs to be a system in place to help those people who have become victims of it.
The last time I looked, said luxuries were produced by the lower class, allowing them to buy necessiities. Why do you want the lower class to lose their jobs?
The "yacht tax" a few years ago provides a useful lesson. The federal govt in its infinite wisdom added an significant tax to pleasure boats. Surprise - folks who could afford to buy outside the US did so. Folks who couldn't cut back. Folks building boats in the US lost their jobs.
The "yacht tax" a few years ago provides a useful lesson. The federal govt in its infinite wisdom added an significant tax to pleasure boats. Surprise - folks who could afford to buy outside the US did so. Folks who couldn't cut back. Folks building boats in the US lost their jobs.
That logic is completely asinine and you know it.
If yacht makers sell a $20 million yacht, it doesn't mean half that money goes to the workers and the other half goes to the CEO.
No. It's called profit maximization.
They pay the workers barely enough to live on while the board gets 30 times that amount. Maximize profits.
The Yacht tax didn't work because yacht owners found loopholes in the tax code such as declaring their yacht as a second home, etc.
Yacht owners buy high-quality, high-value yachts. It doesn't matter if they were made in Missouri or Malaysia, as long as they're expensive and are made of some rare resource.
Stop spreading your bullshit half-baked "ideas" about capitalism. Read the damn business section of a newspaper sometime.
If yacht makers sell a $20 million yacht, it doesn't mean half that money goes to the workers and the other half goes to the CEO.
No. It's called profit maximization.
They pay the workers barely enough to live on while the board gets 30 times that amount. Maximize profits.
The Yacht tax didn't work because yacht owners found loopholes in the tax code such as declaring their yacht as a second home, etc.
Yacht owners buy high-quality, high-value yachts. It doesn't matter if they were made in Missouri or Malaysia, as long as they're expensive and are made of some rare resource.
Stop spreading your bullshit half-baked "ideas" about capitalism. Read the damn business section of a newspaper sometime.
Additionally to not knowing anything about economics, you know nothing of the yacht tax. As some one in the yacht industry, I can tell you it was devestating. And if you think the CEO of a yacht building company rakes in money like the yacht buyers - well you just haven't seen many of their homes. Realize we are competing with China on a significantly slimmer profit margin than your average startup, on a boom or bust industry with fickle buyers.
And nearly all boat yards are sole proprietor private enterprises, so their is no board to pay out to.
And there is no loophole in the tax code. Go to another country, buy a boat flagged their. Keep it outside US waters. Fly to it when you want to go on vacation. People rarely cruise in the US anyway, it is Bahamas, the Med, etc. The loop hole you are referring to if anything is flagging yourself as commercial vs private, and it has to do with income tax on charters - not the initial purchase.
And nearly all boat yards are sole proprietor private enterprises, so their is no board to pay out to.
And there is no loophole in the tax code. Go to another country, buy a boat flagged their. Keep it outside US waters. Fly to it when you want to go on vacation. People rarely cruise in the US anyway, it is Bahamas, the Med, etc. The loop hole you are referring to if anything is flagging yourself as commercial vs private, and it has to do with income tax on charters - not the initial purchase.
> The Yacht tax didn't work because yacht owners found loopholes in the tax code such as declaring their yacht as a second home, etc.
The yacht tax was collected from US manufacturer and importerss, not the buyers, so it didn't matter what the buyers claimed.
The boat-building industry in the US took a huge hit. It turns out that rich folks can keep their boats overseas and poorer folks can do without. That didn't happen before the tax.
Maybe you don't think much of building boats but feel free to explain how losing their jobs did the US workers was good for them. They sure didn't like it.
> They pay the workers barely enough to live on while the board gets 30 times that amount. Maximize profits.
If you really believe that the workers are getting screwed, it's easy enough to set up a company that doesn't screw workers. If you're right, you'll get better workers, they'll make more money, and the money that you save by not paying "the board" can be used to undercut the "evil companies", driving them out of biz.
It doesn't take much money to prove that you're correct, but it does take the courage to risk your money. I'm sure that you're doing that right now, right?
BTW - feel free to name three companies whose profit is 30x the employee expense. (I'm making it easy - the profit can go to stockholders not on the board.) Include cites where we can verify.
> That logic is completely asinine and you know it.
It's asinine that folks will try to avoid taxes? Wowsers. It's asinine that folks will do less of things that are taxed? Better tell Congress that the taxes to discourage (their intended goal) and benefits to encourage (again, their intent) don't work.
> Read the damn business section of a newspaper sometime.
I do. That's where I read about the boat companies laying off workers. That's where I read about tax effects.
The boat workers preferred building boats to being unemployed; we know that because they could have "unemployed" themselves before they were laid-off.
Are they wrong?
The yacht tax was collected from US manufacturer and importerss, not the buyers, so it didn't matter what the buyers claimed.
The boat-building industry in the US took a huge hit. It turns out that rich folks can keep their boats overseas and poorer folks can do without. That didn't happen before the tax.
Maybe you don't think much of building boats but feel free to explain how losing their jobs did the US workers was good for them. They sure didn't like it.
> They pay the workers barely enough to live on while the board gets 30 times that amount. Maximize profits.
If you really believe that the workers are getting screwed, it's easy enough to set up a company that doesn't screw workers. If you're right, you'll get better workers, they'll make more money, and the money that you save by not paying "the board" can be used to undercut the "evil companies", driving them out of biz.
It doesn't take much money to prove that you're correct, but it does take the courage to risk your money. I'm sure that you're doing that right now, right?
BTW - feel free to name three companies whose profit is 30x the employee expense. (I'm making it easy - the profit can go to stockholders not on the board.) Include cites where we can verify.
> That logic is completely asinine and you know it.
It's asinine that folks will try to avoid taxes? Wowsers. It's asinine that folks will do less of things that are taxed? Better tell Congress that the taxes to discourage (their intended goal) and benefits to encourage (again, their intent) don't work.
> Read the damn business section of a newspaper sometime.
I do. That's where I read about the boat companies laying off workers. That's where I read about tax effects.
The boat workers preferred building boats to being unemployed; we know that because they could have "unemployed" themselves before they were laid-off.
Are they wrong?
You obviously know nothing about economics, but if you're getting your ideas from the business section of a newspaper that's understandable.
Between 2001 and 2004 Obama gave 1% of his income to charity. Biden gave .3% of his income to charity. John McCain gave 26% of his income to charity. So remind me, who is it that is the selfish pussy?
Democrats are only generous with other people's money.
Democrats are only generous with other people's money.
Again, with the completely asinine logic.
1. Charity is not a pissing contest and you know that.
2. The McCain's sit on a $100 million company. They have some money to throw around. Ask his wife to release her tax returns from the last few years, and then we can talk about "charity".
3. The amount of money given to a charity does not translate into number of problems fixed or alleviated and you know that.
4. A selfish pussy is a cheapskate that would rather watch a person starve than spend one penny on food to feed him. While extreme, this is essentially a selfish pussy.
1. Charity is not a pissing contest and you know that.
2. The McCain's sit on a $100 million company. They have some money to throw around. Ask his wife to release her tax returns from the last few years, and then we can talk about "charity".
3. The amount of money given to a charity does not translate into number of problems fixed or alleviated and you know that.
4. A selfish pussy is a cheapskate that would rather watch a person starve than spend one penny on food to feed him. While extreme, this is essentially a selfish pussy.
> A selfish pussy is a cheapskate that would rather watch a person starve than spend one penny on food to feed him.
Since McCain spent far more feeding (and housing) other people than Obama and Biden combined....
Then again, that's true of conservatives vs liberals in the US - US conservatives give a larger percentage of their income to charity.
> The amount of money given to a charity does not translate into number of problems fixed or alleviated and you know that.
Is the same true of money taken by govt?
Since McCain spent far more feeding (and housing) other people than Obama and Biden combined....
Then again, that's true of conservatives vs liberals in the US - US conservatives give a larger percentage of their income to charity.
> The amount of money given to a charity does not translate into number of problems fixed or alleviated and you know that.
Is the same true of money taken by govt?
Obama has a brother living in Kenya that lives off a dollar a month. He also has an aunt living in the projects in Boston. Does that make him a selfish pussy?
Wow, you somehow managed to discredit the Democrats' whole platform there. Which side are you on again?
Wanting to keep most of what I've worked hard and taken risks to earn --> "selfish".
Voting to take most of someone else's money for myself and/or those whose beliefs I approve of, and to call agents of the government to arrest those who resist --> "caring, altrusitic, benevolent".
Voting to take most of someone else's money for myself and/or those whose beliefs I approve of, and to call agents of the government to arrest those who resist --> "caring, altrusitic, benevolent".
Most? 35% is ok but 40% is not? 5% is the difference between "limited government" and marxism?
If McCain had a plan to realisticly bring federal taxes down to 15% without a big deficit, I'd be all for it. But the reality is the Bush tax cuts are tax cuts without spending cuts.
Obama takes money from the rich and refunds it to the poor. Some call this buying their votes. Bush took out loans and gave the cash to the rich. Isn't that basically the same thing?
If McCain had a plan to realisticly bring federal taxes down to 15% without a big deficit, I'd be all for it. But the reality is the Bush tax cuts are tax cuts without spending cuts.
Obama takes money from the rich and refunds it to the poor. Some call this buying their votes. Bush took out loans and gave the cash to the rich. Isn't that basically the same thing?
http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/09/mitra-economy-mess-tech-ent...
Time for us to buckle down and admit that Obama's going to win and that angel investment is going to suffer a bit, and sole proprietorships with taxes rising from 35%->50% are going to have to bite the bullet.
Time for us to buckle down and admit that Obama's going to win and that angel investment is going to suffer a bit, and sole proprietorships with taxes rising from 35%->50% are going to have to bite the bullet.
OBAMA STRAIGHT UP LIED!!!! He said he had nothing to do with the CFR(Council on Foreign Relations) Then why is his wifes name on the list? Oops? So i guess your wife is in it but you have nothing to do with it!? OK! If you're voting for Obama or McCain, they are members of the COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, and the NEW WORLD ORDER. Clinton, too. They are for globalization and one world government. Their plans are to build the NAFTA superhighway, starting in eastern Texas, heading north. They will be stealing Americans land by emminent domain. Then the opening of the Canadian and Mexican borders will be next. We will then be called the NORTH AMERICAN UNION, followed by the new currency, the AMERO. The USA will be dissolved.
I like the Council on Foreign Relations. They do rule the world, but they aren't as extreme as they are made out to be. It is more like, no one ever questions them, because they are always right. If the NY Times has a bias, it is in favor of the Council on Foreign Relations's world view. When you get down to it, it is really bizarre how much influence these think tanks can have, the most profound example being the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Ce...
Globalization is not so bad. Either way, it's inevitable. The CFR may rule the world with their quiet influence, but the rest is conspiracy theory. If the world eventually unites in world government, it will be the UN running things, not your mysterious new world order.
Obama is not a member of the CFR, but he gave a speech to them, as required of all serious presidential candidates.
Globalization is not so bad. Either way, it's inevitable. The CFR may rule the world with their quiet influence, but the rest is conspiracy theory. If the world eventually unites in world government, it will be the UN running things, not your mysterious new world order.
Obama is not a member of the CFR, but he gave a speech to them, as required of all serious presidential candidates.
I see you registered that name just to post that.
[deleted]
Just vote.