If you had to pay?

Indie


You are talking of ‘government services’ in the universal sense, theoretically open to anyone, but probably limited by circumstance. You are not saying ‘personal service’ in the singular sense (for example from one individual to another) open only to that individual.

So everyone within the system is getting the same amount in ‘government service’ it is just that due to circumstance they may or may not be entitled to it. But it is still there, and if circumstances change.

 

wa, is it GOOD fish? if it's shitty fish, and i'm paying for it, i want to know so i can raise hell with some dumbass government lackey sitting on their butt drinking coffee and plotting their next promotion at the expense of some one else. by god, it better be GOOD fish....not some piece of smoked carp.

i could cut you a long willow stick, and give you some 20# test line and a few hooks-but would you use it? i can show you how to tie blood knots and trilene knots, and how to bait a hook. one might be able to use a long rod to snag a few things other than fish, for that matter...like steal the neighbor's corn off their stalks, if you got the hook in right.

the foreigners mostly don't know how to fish, tie knots or have any predatory instinct at all, as their governments control where, when, how and how much they can get (while the governors have caviar, and do pr about how hard their lives are). i don't think the foreigners know how to do much except criticize our system, and lay back and grab whatever is handed out...kind of de-evolution, i think. too many years of not having to scramble...putin is waiting to take them. like having a chevrolet vega (my car is so fucking great! don't you want one like it??? i'll sell ya mine for only 50% more than i paid for it), the foreigners want us to believe their system and philosophy is so superior, we ought to be as fucked up as they are. we're working on it....if we elect some more career politicians, we'll have it done.

 

if you are asking can i get good fish here, the answer is no, the local fish is the paddlefish, considered somewhat inedible and endangered to boot

if you are asking can i get good food here, the answer is yes, the barley and beans are grown locally, and it's summer so we even get fresh vegetables

i don't want much, eat my beans and listen to my reggae and rescue the occasional stray cat - and i promise to keep quiet

how much is it worth to the wealthy and powerful for me to look the other way while they steal? um, i mean earn, of course . . .

note that even my very limited income is from the government - grants and subsidies funding my workplace [and a damn good cause]

 

Income taxes? I feel the amount I pay is acceptable enough in that it's not putting me in the poorhouse.

Property taxes? although they aren't putting me in the poor house I do feel they're unreasonably high. But no, I'm not about to stop paying either.

idk about that. I would expect that most or many of those not paying their fair share do it out of pure greed.

 

26 replies... 1 real answer (sort of). Why should I have expected anything different?

 

But just how might a "fair" share be defined?

 

perhaps because it's a stupid question?

or, less offensively, unanswerable?

maybe if we had a complete list of the benefits, including a state-by-state list of local benefits paid for with federal money, we'd be better able to answer

 

lol
That's very involved.
But, off the top of my head.
List services to be provided by gov.
Place value on each service.

Who places the value on the services?
idk, maybe an accounting specialist?
A consortium made up of small business leaders, citizens, etc...
It can go in so many directions.

The bigger problem in the value we get from our tax dollars is ineffeciencies, corruption and greed.

 

The question was intended to provoke the respondent to think about what they feel they receive from the Federal government, which does cost someone.

 

Is it unfair for the costs of a service to be split equally among those who partake of it?

 

IMO, pay per use has 2 very distinct pros and cons.
To me it's fair that only those who use a public service should pay for it.
I don't go to museums or public parks but a portion of my taxes go to maintain them.

However, I do get a benefit from some of those public services even though I may have no direct involvement w/ them.
Parks help to clean the environment and we all get a benefit from that.

Another problem w/ pay per use is that in such a system the services preferred by the masses are the only services that would be available to everyone. The services that pique an interest of the few simply would not generate the funds needed to establish/maintain them.

 

I'm sure something above was intended to be viewed as pro pay per use.

Take the public parks for example, a recent story suggesting privatization of parks in California was met with complaints by Californians that parks should remain free. Privatization would reduce the amount government would have to spend from tax revenues to provide maintenance services to the parks, shifting a large portion of the costs to those who actually use the parks. So those who benefit most from use of the parks would pay the most. Firefighters who are public service employees would remain funded by all taxpayers.

Most often supply is met by demand, and when demand decreases the options are to eliminate the supply or raise the price accordingly. How many buggy whip producers remain in business today?

The free market is the greatest motivator of progress, and while it can bring to market things which greatly exceed the means of many to acquire initially, while free market competition unencumbered by excessive government regulations eventually results in greater access to all.

When government becomes involved in creating what could only be described as charitable programs, it creates an environment in which demand, unlike that which is created by the free market or a desire to obtain with a willingness to pay, and is instead driven solely by a desire to obtain with no attention at all to the cost of providing.

The result of which is today a $14,351,894,981,600.97 and growing debt. If this cannot be recognized as totally irrational and irresponsible spending then we are left with but one option and that is to sit back and wait for total economic failure to occur.

 

i find that people who make assertions like this always assume that they won't have to be the millworkers or sharecroppers

 

Even mill workers and sharecroppers earn their living, and the free market quite often makes many things available as a result of competition. The costs of all goods and services, including and especially those provided by government programs, must always be accounted for.

 

spoken like a true believer - and one who will never actually have to suffer the consequences of their beliefs . . .

 

Not entirely since I did mention a pay per use con.

We all know that unfortunately, such a system would not result in lower taxes or the addition of other services. That money saved by not putting tax dollars into these newly pay per use services would line pockets.

IMO too much of what you're saying is heavily skewed to theory.
Yes, the above is true in theory but falls flat when you look at the real world where marketing efforts create a false demand.

In theory yes. The reality is that w/ no regulation greed becomes a huge motivator in a free market economy. W/ that greed those w/ more money have a greater say in what effects the free market. Effectively no longer making it a free market. Money becomes the invisible hand that fuels the economy. Money should be a product of a capitalist economy, not its fuel.

Let's look at the whole picture here.
the current debt may be a direct result of gov intervention, but the cause of the intervention was a result of greed spawned by a lack of regulation.

Not very different from a manager who needs to step in and micro manage his staff because they fucked up.

Financial markets were deregulated over many decades giving them the opportunity to create very convoluted instruments where one instrument protected the failure of another and in the end it was an entire collapse of the foundations of our economy that had been functioning very nicely for hundreds of years. I'm all for free markets but not when greed is seen as a great thing.

 

A true free market includes an incentive for the 'millworkers' and 'sharecroppers' a level of upward mobility. This is available through professional advancement and entrepreneurship opportunities.

 

As opposed to one who does suffer the consequences of their beliefs?

 

if that were true, then it would be impossible

do you really for one second believe that mill and plantation owners want their workers to outgrow their jobs?

the above is me trying to take this assertion seriously, rather than just typing roflmao as was my initial response . . .

 

Actually I have prospered as a result of my beliefs, which is not to say that there were not times where I had difficulties to overcome.