I think you miss the point of the discussion. The purpose of the discussion on these topics is to promote bigotry against religious people -- especially Christians.
Your post fails to advance (or even understand) the discussion in that regard.
I must be out of the club because I don't know who Phil Zimmerman is. And I don't know who Declan is. And I don't read CNet any more. And I don't know anything about this bill. (And I don't really care about Biden because VP is a "nothing" job, but I can't see how Biden is going to help Barack get any votes.)
It would be cheaper for the amount of work that gets done. Salaries tend the be a function of productivity. If that's not the case in some specific instance, then more expensive is reasonable and just.
There's also the question of benefits and retirement plans. Government workers tend to have benefits that seem a little better than the private sector but they tend to be much more expensive. Government retirement plans are notoriously lavish.
All the same services would be available to everyone. Life would be almost exactly the same, except everyone would be more prosperous.
The libraries would still be open if people wanted them enough to donate a tiny bit of money. The universities would all still be there but people would have to pay out of their own pocket if they wanted a gender studies or art history degree. Health services would be as good or better. Crime would be much lower. Education would be much better for the children but not as good for the teachers union. Government employees would be the same, except they wouldn't be so expensive.
If government exists to help the people, the changes I'd make would make things better for people. But government's current purpose is giveaways and payroll for government workers. And I disagree that that's their rightful goal.
Also "I wouldn't want to live in a place like that" seems like a poor justification for taking huge amounts of money from people against their will. The premise is that it's OK to steal money from people because it buys you what you want. Someone might wonder if you'd also agree that it's OK to kill and rape if it helps you get what you want.
"Transportation" is a trick. It's a code word. Gas taxes pay for roads. "Transportation" includes transit and transit is a subsidized benefit. Transit users pay about 10% of the bill for their transportation. The rest is taken from everyone else. "Transportation" also includes rest stops, art projects, bike trails, employee diversity programs at the DOT, and lots of other things that are not roads. Also, roads could be built and maintained for a lot less if they'd allow non-union contractors to work on them.
Oh, and in Virginia, you also have a port authority under "Transportation". Container ships are not roads. Airports are not roads either.
After a few minutes of looking, here's some stuff that would I change:
- I'd start with a salary freeze for all government employees. - No pensions for retirees. 401Ks only - Health insurance could not be better than average for private-sector employees in the state. - I'd solicit bids from the private sector for anything a government employee does. - Universities that have "gender studies" programs don't need government funding for them. Public universities should have to provide a cost-benefit study for each degree program they offer. If the benefit of the degree doesn't outweigh the cost by some large factor, the professors should be laid off and that part of the institution should be closed. - I'd tell the museums and public libraries that they'd eventually get zero public money and they should start fund-raising in the private sector. - I'd institute mandatory drug testing for people on public assistance and some people who receive other benefits. This would stop the government from subsidizing drug use and get some habitual drug users to move out of the state. - I'd provide a tax credit for private schools tuition. In time, most students would be enrolled in private schools and most of the k-12 public education could be eliminated or privatized away. - No government medical assistance (insurance) would be available to able-bodied adults - Almost everything in the Dept of Commerce and Trade could be eliminated or privatized - Most of the functions of the Dept of Health could be transitioned to private charities.
It seems pretty clear the the budget could be cut by at least half and probably a lot more over time. And Virginia seems better run than my state.
From the point of view of the person getting "taxed", he's completely correct.
I'm guessing that he is like me. I pay a huge amount in taxes. I see very little benefit -- and in many cases, I see the money being used to make things objectively worse for me.
I know that if I could keep my tax money, my life would be better. But there are people out there who don't work as hard who have empowered themselves to take my earnings from me. They are the government class -- they receive the benefits of my work.
And there are people like you. You agree that the government class deserves the benefits of my work more than I do. You insist on it.
And between you and the people in the government class, you are a majority. And the rest of us are subject to your decisions, as serfs were once subject to their lord or slaves to their masters. We have a voice, but it's a minority voice. We simply don't get to choose who benefits from the work we do and the wages we earn. But we know that it's not us.
It's wrong to steal from people. At their current level and structure, taxes are stealing from one person for the benefit of another. But the injustice and immorality of the tax system is never a problem for the people who benefit from it -- just as the injustice and immorality of slavery was well-understood but it was insufficient to lead most slave owners to free their slaves. And rationalizations about what the slaves were provided in return for their labor were common.
Gas taxes pay for the roads. They are not exempt from gas taxes. This "roads" nonsense is always brought up as something generic taxes pay for, but they don't. Roads are self-funded by their users' gas tax payments. We'd have them even if income and sales taxes were both zero.
...they will receive protection from the police...
Property taxes pay for police. But I bet they'll hire private security because the police service they get is inadequate for them.
...they will sent their kids to school...
Corporate entities don't have kids. Their workers' property taxes and income taxes will pay for the schools. They don't get a tax break on either of those.
...they will visit the parks...
Corporate entities don't go to the park. Server farms don't use parks. This is similar to schools.
...they will use the state courts...
Yes. Unless they have arbitration agreements and use private arbitration instead. Many companies are moving to private arbitration because the courts take too long, are too expensive, and sometimes do a poor job.
they will eat the food inspected by the government
Servers don't eat. See "schools" above.
The state government (in this case anyway) is the not enemy. It's providing necessary services used by everyone and begrudging them the money to do so effectively is short-sighted and destructive.
Yes they are. And they have many, many times the amount of money they need to do the job they should do. The rest is used for handouts and make-work and inefficiency, injustice and meddling and interfering and corruption.
Most of the money is reasonably well spent, and there are plenty of people watching the government and how spends its money.
Not right now. It's 4 PM -- time for government workers to go home while the rest of us work until 5:30 or later.
No one is saying that every government dollar is wasted. Most government dollars are simply spent inefficiently or handed out to non-producers or used to pay for lavish government-worker benefits and above-average salaries.
If you do not pay taxes, but you consume government provided resources...
This is not the case, in general, for ordinary working people that engage in business in the US. In general, the people who consume government are not the tax payers. Government has become a wealth re-distribution scheme from people who produce to people who don't.
No one involved in a data center project is likely to be a large consumer of government services. They are going to be net tax-payers. The only question is whether how much damage the government can do to them. This deal limits that damage somewhat.
A large percentage of a small number is still a small number. Cutting the size of the government is the only way to decrease the burden on everyone.
Also, this seems poorly thought out:
I also think there is an argument to tax large profits for the sake of encouraging re-investment (for example a 50% tax on all profit over 15% of gross would encourage some of that extra profit to be spent on R&D (or salaries, probably for those who need it least). You could even allow years where profits ate 10% to allow the extra 5% to be deducted from future years.
The only reason to invest is to earn profits. You can't tax profits to provide an incentive to invest. If I ran a company under your rules, I wouldn't invest just for the opportunity to lose it all in tax payments when the investments pay off. I'd use cash to buy back the stock to increase investors' capital gains and save the investment for when the rules change (or move offshore where I could get a better return and actually keep it).
I still don't understand. Why are "a very small number of low-paid jobs" not a good thing again? Any small number is larger than zero.
It would seem to be clear that offering large tax breaks to every (and also "any") employer, regardless of how big, would be a good way to increase employment.
The only way this is not a good thing is if you think that increased government revenue ought to be the goal of everyone's life.
It is a valid point. The people who fall for these scams are guilty. They are trying to get away with something and make some quick cash in a shady deal.
On the other hand, society probably doesn't need to be protected from these scam victims. So putting them in jail would be expensive and serve no purpose.
Wishful thinking doesn't solve real problems. His "attitude to life" isn't what will prevent theft or defend against lawsuits. His attitude didn't create thieves or lawyers, why would changing his attitude make them disappear? It's not his fault the US is filled with lawyers and thieves.
That goes for both the LAN guy and the commenter guy.
In the US, you need to protect yourself from lawyers and thieves. No one else will do it for you and the lawyers and thieves protect each other.
Too bad. I'm sure we'll hear that the Sahara would still be green except George Bush doesn't care about black people. The desert undoubtedly spread because of global warming (er, I mean "climate change" because you can't sell warming when it's cold -- and scientific consensus is all about marketing for some reason) caused by those evil SUVs of the time.
If your understanding of the political system is so shallow that you are confused by the word "conservative", then I suggest writing in "Spongebob" on your ballot for every public office.
Who is "we"? Who appointed this "we" to make choices for people besides themselves?
I'm not sure why we're all supposed to care about one organization's sporting event vs. any other organization's sporting event. Because the Olympics has a big hype machine?
Each organization can make their own rules and allow or exclude people based on whatever criteria they want.
Yes. Everything bad that happens is the fault of the USA. It's the answer that's always available. It works for dictators. It works for their sympathizers on US university campuses. It works for any aggressor in any situation. It saves having to think or understand any situation and provides an excuse for any action.
No. We don't want that. We'll take the American system. It has problems. We know about them. We don't need an untested pie-in-the-sky replacement system.
Government systems have a very poor track record with tragic results in almost every case. The US system is slightly better than most alternatives. It is time-tested and the results are imperfect but not tragic.
You're asking us to spin the roulette wheel and bet our lives on double-zero. If we win we get to feel good about ourselves. If we lose it's totalitarianism, tyranny and probably civil war. No sensible person would choose that bet.
Maybe you need to spend less time on science and learn some history.
...as a result our way of democracy really isn't working all that well for the benefit of the citizens.
No one promised you a paradise on Earth. Human institutions have human failings. No amount of scientific knowledge or good intentions or anything else can change that.
If you deny government institutions power, you can limit the damage from their mistakes and you can make the best choices for yourself and your family. If you give government institutions great power, you end up with no choices and are subject to great damage from their mistakes.
That's the thing about voting. You get to vote regardless of whether someone thinks you have The Right Information about whatever topic. It's representative democracy. There are other forms of government that only let you decide in certain selected circumstances.
Almost every election we hear some variation on: "Americans are stupid. We hate them, their religion, their culture, and the things they like. Why won't they vote for us? Don't they know we're better than them and can lead them from their benighted ways?"
... every person has... the... responsibility to behave in such a way that allows society to benefit the most people.
This is absolute bullshit. This means all behavior can be ruled in precise minute detail by saying the magic words "society benefits the most people". Want to enslave 25% of the population? Well, since 75% is "the most people" and they'll clearly benefit from the forced labor of the rest, I guess you just justified it then.
Yeah, you didn't mean it that way. You just knew how people should make their choices in a few little ways and decided to justify it by the benefit to society. So does everyone else, only they know they should make some other choices on a different subject. You all go ahead and have the police enforce those choices. And that's why no one has any freedom left.
I realize that behaving with common sense...
There's no such thing as "common sense". The words "common sense" mean "agrees with me". If you think I'm wrong, come up with a clear empirical test for what's common sense and what isn't and post it.
And no one would complain that much if it were just the lawn watering -- it's everything together. (There's no reason the delivery of water couldn't be privatized so I could buy as much as I wanted, but that's just an aside.) I live 2 miles from a huge river that floods every year, but we have lawn-watering restrictions because the local town has money to build a new Performing Arts complex but not enough to deliver water to people so they can water their lawns when they want.
...and respect for others is obviously not on the top of many people's list...
The people who ask for this "respect" don't grant it to others in return. We have handicap parking signs, for example. Do they say "please"? No. They say "$200 fine". "Please" is respect and "$200 fine" is contempt. What's the basis for respecting others in such an environment?
This is yet another example of the end of freedom, that's what. This is one set of people deciding that you are making the wrong choices with your freedom and they need to make all your choices for you from now on.
They want to choose - your hobby, - what games you can play, - whether you can smoke, - what you can drink, - what you can eat, - what kinds of cars you're allowed to drive, - how fast, - where you can live, - how you celebrate the 4th of July, - how much money you can make, - how much money you can pay your employees, - how you raise your children, - what jokes you can tell at work, - the precise mix of fuel in your gas tank, - what health care you are to be allowed, - who you can rent housing to, - what's on your cable TV, - and what days you can water your lawn.
What's the big deal? Why don't we all just make exactly the choices you might make and then we'll never have a problem?
And the worst thing: the only "solution" people talk about is getting "person C" to be in charge of making everyone's choices for them instead of "person D".
Slashdot Mirror
I think you miss the point of the discussion. The purpose of the discussion on these topics is to promote bigotry against religious people -- especially Christians.
Your post fails to advance (or even understand) the discussion in that regard.
I must be out of the club because I don't know who Phil Zimmerman is. And I don't know who Declan is. And I don't read CNet any more. And I don't know anything about this bill. (And I don't really care about Biden because VP is a "nothing" job, but I can't see how Biden is going to help Barack get any votes.)
I feel fine though.
It would be cheaper for the amount of work that gets done. Salaries tend the be a function of productivity. If that's not the case in some specific instance, then more expensive is reasonable and just.
There's also the question of benefits and retirement plans. Government workers tend to have benefits that seem a little better than the private sector but they tend to be much more expensive. Government retirement plans are notoriously lavish.
All the same services would be available to everyone. Life would be almost exactly the same, except everyone would be more prosperous.
The libraries would still be open if people wanted them enough to donate a tiny bit of money. The universities would all still be there but people would have to pay out of their own pocket if they wanted a gender studies or art history degree. Health services would be as good or better. Crime would be much lower. Education would be much better for the children but not as good for the teachers union. Government employees would be the same, except they wouldn't be so expensive.
If government exists to help the people, the changes I'd make would make things better for people. But government's current purpose is giveaways and payroll for government workers. And I disagree that that's their rightful goal.
Also "I wouldn't want to live in a place like that" seems like a poor justification for taking huge amounts of money from people against their will. The premise is that it's OK to steal money from people because it buys you what you want. Someone might wonder if you'd also agree that it's OK to kill and rape if it helps you get what you want.
"Transportation" is a trick. It's a code word. Gas taxes pay for roads. "Transportation" includes transit and transit is a subsidized benefit. Transit users pay about 10% of the bill for their transportation. The rest is taken from everyone else. "Transportation" also includes rest stops, art projects, bike trails, employee diversity programs at the DOT, and lots of other things that are not roads. Also, roads could be built and maintained for a lot less if they'd allow non-union contractors to work on them.
Oh, and in Virginia, you also have a port authority under "Transportation". Container ships are not roads. Airports are not roads either.
After a few minutes of looking, here's some stuff that would I change:
- I'd start with a salary freeze for all government employees.
- No pensions for retirees. 401Ks only
- Health insurance could not be better than average for private-sector employees in the state.
- I'd solicit bids from the private sector for anything a government employee does.
- Universities that have "gender studies" programs don't need government funding for them. Public universities should have to provide a cost-benefit study for each degree program they offer. If the benefit of the degree doesn't outweigh the cost by some large factor, the professors should be laid off and that part of the institution should be closed.
- I'd tell the museums and public libraries that they'd eventually get zero public money and they should start fund-raising in the private sector.
- I'd institute mandatory drug testing for people on public assistance and some people who receive other benefits. This would stop the government from subsidizing drug use and get some habitual drug users to move out of the state.
- I'd provide a tax credit for private schools tuition. In time, most students would be enrolled in private schools and most of the k-12 public education could be eliminated or privatized away.
- No government medical assistance (insurance) would be available to able-bodied adults
- Almost everything in the Dept of Commerce and Trade could be eliminated or privatized
- Most of the functions of the Dept of Health could be transitioned to private charities.
It seems pretty clear the the budget could be cut by at least half and probably a lot more over time. And Virginia seems better run than my state.
From the point of view of the person getting "taxed", he's completely correct.
I'm guessing that he is like me. I pay a huge amount in taxes. I see very little benefit -- and in many cases, I see the money being used to make things objectively worse for me.
I know that if I could keep my tax money, my life would be better. But there are people out there who don't work as hard who have empowered themselves to take my earnings from me. They are the government class -- they receive the benefits of my work.
And there are people like you. You agree that the government class deserves the benefits of my work more than I do. You insist on it.
And between you and the people in the government class, you are a majority. And the rest of us are subject to your decisions, as serfs were once subject to their lord or slaves to their masters. We have a voice, but it's a minority voice. We simply don't get to choose who benefits from the work we do and the wages we earn. But we know that it's not us.
It's wrong to steal from people. At their current level and structure, taxes are stealing from one person for the benefit of another. But the injustice and immorality of the tax system is never a problem for the people who benefit from it -- just as the injustice and immorality of slavery was well-understood but it was insufficient to lead most slave owners to free their slaves. And rationalizations about what the slaves were provided in return for their labor were common.
They will drive on the roads...
Gas taxes pay for the roads. They are not exempt from gas taxes. This "roads" nonsense is always brought up as something generic taxes pay for, but they don't. Roads are self-funded by their users' gas tax payments. We'd have them even if income and sales taxes were both zero.
...they will receive protection from the police...
Property taxes pay for police. But I bet they'll hire private security because the police service they get is inadequate for them.
...they will sent their kids to school...
Corporate entities don't have kids. Their workers' property taxes and income taxes will pay for the schools. They don't get a tax break on either of those.
...they will visit the parks...
Corporate entities don't go to the park. Server farms don't use parks. This is similar to schools.
...they will use the state courts...
Yes. Unless they have arbitration agreements and use private arbitration instead. Many companies are moving to private arbitration because the courts take too long, are too expensive, and sometimes do a poor job.
they will eat the food inspected by the government
Servers don't eat. See "schools" above.
The state government (in this case anyway) is the not enemy. It's providing necessary services used by everyone and begrudging them the money to do so effectively is short-sighted and destructive.
Yes they are. And they have many, many times the amount of money they need to do the job they should do. The rest is used for handouts and make-work and inefficiency, injustice and meddling and interfering and corruption.
Most of the money is reasonably well spent, and there are plenty of people watching the government and how spends its money.
Not right now. It's 4 PM -- time for government workers to go home while the rest of us work until 5:30 or later.
No one is saying that every government dollar is wasted. Most government dollars are simply spent inefficiently or handed out to non-producers or used to pay for lavish government-worker benefits and above-average salaries.
If you do not pay taxes, but you consume government provided resources...
This is not the case, in general, for ordinary working people that engage in business in the US. In general, the people who consume government are not the tax payers. Government has become a wealth re-distribution scheme from people who produce to people who don't.
No one involved in a data center project is likely to be a large consumer of government services. They are going to be net tax-payers. The only question is whether how much damage the government can do to them. This deal limits that damage somewhat.
A large percentage of a small number is still a small number. Cutting the size of the government is the only way to decrease the burden on everyone.
Also, this seems poorly thought out:
I also think there is an argument to tax large profits for the sake of encouraging re-investment (for example a 50% tax on all profit over 15% of gross would encourage some of that extra profit to be spent on R&D (or salaries, probably for those who need it least). You could even allow years where profits ate 10% to allow the extra 5% to be deducted from future years.
The only reason to invest is to earn profits. You can't tax profits to provide an incentive to invest. If I ran a company under your rules, I wouldn't invest just for the opportunity to lose it all in tax payments when the investments pay off. I'd use cash to buy back the stock to increase investors' capital gains and save the investment for when the rules change (or move offshore where I could get a better return and actually keep it).
I still don't understand. Why are "a very small number of low-paid jobs" not a good thing again? Any small number is larger than zero.
It would seem to be clear that offering large tax breaks to every (and also "any") employer, regardless of how big, would be a good way to increase employment.
The only way this is not a good thing is if you think that increased government revenue ought to be the goal of everyone's life.
...since only the lowest paid workers (rack and stack, junior technicians to push power buttons) will actually need to work on-site.
And they are so lowly that no one should give a crap about them?
Assuming the state runs on an ab out balanced budget it does mean citizens are taking a larger percentage of the taxes.
Or they can just cut the budget and shrink the government.
Tax cuts are not welfare.
If you decide not to hold up a liquor store, that's not a generous gift you've given the liquor store owner.
It is a valid point. The people who fall for these scams are guilty. They are trying to get away with something and make some quick cash in a shady deal.
On the other hand, society probably doesn't need to be protected from these scam victims. So putting them in jail would be expensive and serve no purpose.
Wishful thinking doesn't solve real problems. His "attitude to life" isn't what will prevent theft or defend against lawsuits. His attitude didn't create thieves or lawyers, why would changing his attitude make them disappear? It's not his fault the US is filled with lawyers and thieves.
That goes for both the LAN guy and the commenter guy.
In the US, you need to protect yourself from lawyers and thieves. No one else will do it for you and the lawyers and thieves protect each other.
Is NewsTrust funded by George Soros? Who funds NewsTrust?
Too bad. I'm sure we'll hear that the Sahara would still be green except George Bush doesn't care about black people. The desert undoubtedly spread because of global warming (er, I mean "climate change" because you can't sell warming when it's cold -- and scientific consensus is all about marketing for some reason) caused by those evil SUVs of the time.
I hope The One can bring the green back. And future generations will say "... this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal...".
If your understanding of the political system is so shallow that you are confused by the word "conservative", then I suggest writing in "Spongebob" on your ballot for every public office.
Who is "we"? Who appointed this "we" to make choices for people besides themselves?
I'm not sure why we're all supposed to care about one organization's sporting event vs. any other organization's sporting event. Because the Olympics has a big hype machine?
Each organization can make their own rules and allow or exclude people based on whatever criteria they want.
It was Georgia, with support from USA...
Yes. Everything bad that happens is the fault of the USA. It's the answer that's always available. It works for dictators. It works for their sympathizers on US university campuses. It works for any aggressor in any situation. It saves having to think or understand any situation and provides an excuse for any action.
No. We don't want that. We'll take the American system. It has problems. We know about them. We don't need an untested pie-in-the-sky replacement system.
Government systems have a very poor track record with tragic results in almost every case. The US system is slightly better than most alternatives. It is time-tested and the results are imperfect but not tragic.
You're asking us to spin the roulette wheel and bet our lives on double-zero. If we win we get to feel good about ourselves. If we lose it's totalitarianism, tyranny and probably civil war. No sensible person would choose that bet.
Maybe you need to spend less time on science and learn some history.
...as a result our way of democracy really isn't working all that well for the benefit of the citizens.
No one promised you a paradise on Earth. Human institutions have human failings. No amount of scientific knowledge or good intentions or anything else can change that.
If you deny government institutions power, you can limit the damage from their mistakes and you can make the best choices for yourself and your family. If you give government institutions great power, you end up with no choices and are subject to great damage from their mistakes.
That's the thing about voting. You get to vote regardless of whether someone thinks you have The Right Information about whatever topic. It's representative democracy. There are other forms of government that only let you decide in certain selected circumstances.
Almost every election we hear some variation on: "Americans are stupid. We hate them, their religion, their culture, and the things they like. Why won't they vote for us? Don't they know we're better than them and can lead them from their benighted ways?"
Yeah, we know. That's why you keep losing.
... every person has ... the ... responsibility to behave in such a way that allows society to benefit the most people.
This is absolute bullshit. This means all behavior can be ruled in precise minute detail by saying the magic words "society benefits the most people". Want to enslave 25% of the population? Well, since 75% is "the most people" and they'll clearly benefit from the forced labor of the rest, I guess you just justified it then.
Yeah, you didn't mean it that way. You just knew how people should make their choices in a few little ways and decided to justify it by the benefit to society. So does everyone else, only they know they should make some other choices on a different subject. You all go ahead and have the police enforce those choices. And that's why no one has any freedom left.
I realize that behaving with common sense...
There's no such thing as "common sense". The words "common sense" mean "agrees with me". If you think I'm wrong, come up with a clear empirical test for what's common sense and what isn't and post it.
And no one would complain that much if it were just the lawn watering -- it's everything together. (There's no reason the delivery of water couldn't be privatized so I could buy as much as I wanted, but that's just an aside.) I live 2 miles from a huge river that floods every year, but we have lawn-watering restrictions because the local town has money to build a new Performing Arts complex but not enough to deliver water to people so they can water their lawns when they want.
The people who ask for this "respect" don't grant it to others in return. We have handicap parking signs, for example. Do they say "please"? No. They say "$200 fine". "Please" is respect and "$200 fine" is contempt. What's the basis for respecting others in such an environment?
What's the big deal?
This is yet another example of the end of freedom, that's what. This is one set of people deciding that you are making the wrong choices with your freedom and they need to make all your choices for you from now on.
They want to choose
- your hobby,
- what games you can play,
- whether you can smoke,
- what you can drink,
- what you can eat,
- what kinds of cars you're allowed to drive,
- how fast,
- where you can live,
- how you celebrate the 4th of July,
- how much money you can make,
- how much money you can pay your employees,
- how you raise your children,
- what jokes you can tell at work,
- the precise mix of fuel in your gas tank,
- what health care you are to be allowed,
- who you can rent housing to,
- what's on your cable TV,
- and what days you can water your lawn.
What's the big deal? Why don't we all just make exactly the choices you might make and then we'll never have a problem?
And the worst thing: the only "solution" people talk about is getting "person C" to be in charge of making everyone's choices for them instead of "person D".