The circular aspect of it is that as we argue what aspects of taxation are legitimate - i.e., what are legitimate governmental functions - the retort comes that it is "civilization" that we fund. And what's "civilization"? The arbitrary list of tax-funded services.
It must be nice, having so much unspent income, and no friends and relatives to whom you would rather support directly (more efficiently).
It must be doubly nice to support such a virtuous scheme whereby others who are not in your situation are nevertheless forced to play - and pay - along.
"On average, a US citizen is going to pay more for health insurance than than they will ever get back in services"
Of course - and that is true of any type of insurance, anywhere. That's the whole premise of insurance. It can economically cover unpredictable perils, not routine ones.
"Another benefit from a more progressive society is there is less of a gap between rich and poor in the first place"
Why is that supposed to be good?
"so there is less need to subsidize"
Now wait a minute - don't these "progressive" societies get that way precisely by forcing the rich to transfer more wealth to the poor? In other words, that desirable (?) "smaller gap between rich and poor" gets that way precisely by means of subsidies.
But **on average**, by nature of the "progressive" taxation system, of course those at above-median income will have to pay more, probably far more, than they take out.
My point was that for people who are bound to be at the top of the middle class payscales, they would be made to contribute far more to the state treasury than their own costs pull out.
If the GP poster had referred to a family of janitors, it wouldn't be so. But he/she said engineers.....
Well put generally - but gives too much benefit-of-doubt to the benevolence of "regulated market wages". Those don't happen naturally, but as a consequence of an economically undereducated populace & pandering politicians. At least I hope those are not unstoppable forces of nature.
Are you by any chance confusing... sole proprietorships / partnerships / corporations?
And more importantly, reality / legal fictions? When you want to control what a business does, you want to control what the people who ganged together to form it do. Just because there is a level of indirection doesn't make a mandate any less imposed on human beings.
So again, your "viable" alternatives are not even fertilized, born, never mind mature. But you're so sure that customers are hurting themselves, and that they must all be protected from their own possibly silentcoder-disapproved decisions.
Slashdot Mirror
Insert here routine complaint that the federal government has no delegated power to fund or perform medical research.
Such coyness is unseemly. Besides, GKH is immune to blame already by virtue of the NO WARRANTY clause of the GPL.
at least it's such a silly imperial phrase, it must be a joke ... surely?
"trusted government agencies"
oxymoron
"Interfaces can't be protected by copyright"
The first Oracle/Google judgement ruled otherwise.
"eight hours per day, five days per week, 50 weeks per year"
Those are not constraints of a robot's work schedule.
Or perhaps you're suggesting they unionize?
Not to mince words, yes, the image is rather undesirable.
The circular aspect of it is that as we argue what aspects of taxation are legitimate - i.e., what are legitimate governmental functions - the retort comes that it is "civilization" that we fund. And what's "civilization"? The arbitrary list of tax-funded services.
"We're not forcing anyone to pay. If you don't like paying taxes, GTFO."
Haha, right. "GTFO" is not forcing.
"Taxes are what we pay for civilization"
That's rather circular of you.
It must be nice, having so much unspent income, and no friends and relatives to whom you would rather support directly (more efficiently).
It must be doubly nice to support such a virtuous scheme whereby others who are not in your situation are nevertheless forced to play - and pay - along.
Yeah, but you see, I'm not envious toward those better off. I'm no worse off because of them, for example.
"... and you pay more than they do for them."
(Er what?)
Yeah, so what if so much of what they worked for is taken away. It's not like their own family could benefit from the money.
oh but it can! #feelthebern
"On average, a US citizen is going to pay more for health insurance than than they will ever get back in services"
Of course - and that is true of any type of insurance, anywhere. That's the whole premise of insurance. It can economically cover unpredictable perils, not routine ones.
"Another benefit from a more progressive society is there is less of a gap between rich and poor in the first place"
Why is that supposed to be good?
"so there is less need to subsidize"
Now wait a minute - don't these "progressive" societies get that way precisely by forcing the rich to transfer more wealth to the poor? In other words, that desirable (?) "smaller gap between rich and poor" gets that way precisely by means of subsidies.
Oh sure, crap can happen.
But **on average**, by nature of the "progressive" taxation system, of course those at above-median income will have to pay more, probably far more, than they take out.
My point was that for people who are bound to be at the top of the middle class payscales, they would be made to contribute far more to the state treasury than their own costs pull out.
If the GP poster had referred to a family of janitors, it wouldn't be so. But he/she said engineers.....
... then, if both parents are engineers, more than half their income will be taxed to pay for others' kids' kindergartening
... unless the trufens "no award" them
But but but, it's $CURRENT_YEAR, how come so many more female than male winners???!?!??!?!?!
Well put generally - but gives too much benefit-of-doubt to the benevolence of "regulated market wages". Those don't happen naturally, but as a consequence of an economically undereducated populace & pandering politicians. At least I hope those are not unstoppable forces of nature.
Are you by any chance confusing ... sole proprietorships / partnerships / corporations?
And more importantly, reality / legal fictions? When you want to control what a business does, you want to control what the people who ganged together to form it do. Just because there is a level of indirection doesn't make a mandate any less imposed on human beings.
A business is a group of people.
... so your principles about rights of free people stood as long as 90 minutes before crumbling before political correctness ... maybe that's a record
So again, your "viable" alternatives are not even fertilized, born, never mind mature. But you're so sure that customers are hurting themselves, and that they must all be protected from their own possibly silentcoder-disapproved decisions.
Why do you patronize and hate the poor so?
"it is the right of every free citizen to only allow, on their own property, behavior that accords with their own ethics"
So where do you stand on the gay cake/bakery situation?
Or Citizens United?