Idea 1 is interesting - very democratic. But not without problems. For example, how many taxpayers would voluntarily choose to give money to the USGS or NASA? Not so many. Certainly not enough to fund them. The average person would rather give it to something which would give them tangible benifits in the immediate future. In my opinion, these institutions do valuable work (despite the beuracracy) - on the other hand, there is a case to be made that if the huddled masses who are footing the bill do not want science, we should not fund science. So the question here is, do we consider some things to be of virtue in and of themselves (science, art, etc)? If so, does government have a responsibility to society to advance these things?
Idea 2 has a major flaw. It basically turns into a flat tax. Sure, you can be frugal and use the highway less. But people need to get to work. Someone who makes $20,000 a year will essentially be paying the same tax for road maintenence as someone making $5,000,000. Even assuming the rich guy goes on joyrides and uses twice as much gas, on a percentage basis he is paying MUCH less of his income to taxes.
This is a problem because the tax rate for gasoline in your example would have to be raised significantly in order for it to reach the disered income of the state. In effect, this (much like a national sales tax) would give the rich a huge tax cut, and impose a HUGE tax burden on the lower and middle classes. This is the reason for "progressive taxation", which sounds unfair (the rich have to pay a higher percentage of their income), but it's the only way of preventing a back-breaking tax on the poor.
That whole example assumes you're not a hardcore Randian who couldn't give a shit about the poor and doesn't believe gvmnt. should be in the business of offering services. But I take from you're statement "I agree that we need a government to form a cohesive society, and that government necessarily needs funds to operate" that you are not really one of those.
Re:What is really at risk under a Kerry admin.?
on
The Nader Factor
·
· Score: 1
I don't quite agree. I think the real-life differences, small as they may be, outweigh the need to whip liberals into a suitable frenzy.
Re:As Green I wouldn't vote for Nader if you paid
on
The Nader Factor
·
· Score: 1
Remember that crap ass movie "Demolition Man"?
Yeah, I seem to recall an "Arnold Shwarzenneger Presidential Library".
I'm more scared of that becoming a reality than of a Nader presidency.
It's somewhat overhyped. There is some legitimate concern about disenfranchisement, but our elections are in much better shape than some. No blatent widespread fraud (like changing the results).
Of coarse now that we have the new Diebold machines, this could all happen in theory... but it's all speculation. The machines are not 100% secure, their code is proprietery. It's clearly imperfect, but again, not as bad as some other nations *cough*Afghanistan*cough*.
But I'm not worried about the Military Juanta (yet - check back in 10 or 20 years and see where we are).
It's worth noting, by the way, that the Democrats have been waging a systematic campaign to get Ralph Nader off ballots, with no one seeming too upset about it...
Thing is, the Democratic party and their mouthpieces have demonized Nader to the point where a lot of Democratic Party loyalists actually have more animosity towards Nader than towards Bush. Many liberals who may have even supported Nader in 2000 are now foaming at the mouth when his name comes up.
It's perfectly legitimate for these people to decide to vote for Kerry, but I'm disgusted by the smear campaign waged by the DNC.
BTW I apologize for linking to a site that requires registration. The headline linked to is "Nader Emerging as the Threat Democrats Feared".
My state allows you to register without party affiliation. This is very helpful in avoiding fraud - the only thing they could do is throw away registration forms based on demographics (e.g. throw out forms from predominantly black neighborhoods).
I agree, this overall situation is terrible. I would encourage readers not to use third party registration and go direct. I wouldn't put it past operatives/supporters of either party to disenfranchise voters.
Have you heard one word from Kerry or Bush about stopping the flood of ILLEGAL aliens across the southern border?
Actually Kerry said something about this in the debate last night. Of coarse it was a vague statement along the lines of "Bush has not made our borders secure, and I will", but at least he brought it up.
Though I think having Badnarik around for this question would have made the "discussion" a lot more interesting!
Slashdot Mirror
Idea 1 is interesting - very democratic. But not without problems. For example, how many taxpayers would voluntarily choose to give money to the USGS or NASA? Not so many. Certainly not enough to fund them. The average person would rather give it to something which would give them tangible benifits in the immediate future. In my opinion, these institutions do valuable work (despite the beuracracy) - on the other hand, there is a case to be made that if the huddled masses who are footing the bill do not want science, we should not fund science. So the question here is, do we consider some things to be of virtue in and of themselves (science, art, etc)? If so, does government have a responsibility to society to advance these things?
Idea 2 has a major flaw. It basically turns into a flat tax. Sure, you can be frugal and use the highway less. But people need to get to work. Someone who makes $20,000 a year will essentially be paying the same tax for road maintenence as someone making $5,000,000. Even assuming the rich guy goes on joyrides and uses twice as much gas, on a percentage basis he is paying MUCH less of his income to taxes.
This is a problem because the tax rate for gasoline in your example would have to be raised significantly in order for it to reach the disered income of the state. In effect, this (much like a national sales tax) would give the rich a huge tax cut, and impose a HUGE tax burden on the lower and middle classes. This is the reason for "progressive taxation", which sounds unfair (the rich have to pay a higher percentage of their income), but it's the only way of preventing a back-breaking tax on the poor.
That whole example assumes you're not a hardcore Randian who couldn't give a shit about the poor and doesn't believe gvmnt. should be in the business of offering services. But I take from you're statement "I agree that we need a government to form a cohesive society, and that government necessarily needs funds to operate" that you are not really one of those.
I don't quite agree. I think the real-life differences, small as they may be, outweigh the need to whip liberals into a suitable frenzy.
Remember that crap ass movie "Demolition Man"?
Yeah, I seem to recall an "Arnold Shwarzenneger Presidential Library".
I'm more scared of that becoming a reality than of a Nader presidency.
Of coarse now that we have the new Diebold machines, this could all happen in theory... but it's all speculation. The machines are not 100% secure, their code is proprietery. It's clearly imperfect, but again, not as bad as some other nations *cough*Afghanistan*cough*.
But I'm not worried about the Military Juanta (yet - check back in 10 or 20 years and see where we are).
Thing is, the Democratic party and their mouthpieces have demonized Nader to the point where a lot of Democratic Party loyalists actually have more animosity towards Nader than towards Bush. Many liberals who may have even supported Nader in 2000 are now foaming at the mouth when his name comes up.
It's perfectly legitimate for these people to decide to vote for Kerry, but I'm disgusted by the smear campaign waged by the DNC.
BTW I apologize for linking to a site that requires registration. The headline linked to is "Nader Emerging as the Threat Democrats Feared".
I agree, this overall situation is terrible. I would encourage readers not to use third party registration and go direct. I wouldn't put it past operatives/supporters of either party to disenfranchise voters.
Actually Kerry said something about this in the debate last night. Of coarse it was a vague statement along the lines of "Bush has not made our borders secure, and I will", but at least he brought it up.
Though I think having Badnarik around for this question would have made the "discussion" a lot more interesting!
...there will be a rally at 0900 to thank Big Brother for increasing chocolate rations to 20 grams.