Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?
Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2015 1:51 pm
Where does what "all end up"?pigpot wrote:Where does it all end up. Any ideas?
It's like conversing with a child.
Quatloos! The views herein are not those of Quatloosia Publishing LLC -- Legal Issues Fax to 877-698-0678 and admin issues to sooltauq [at] gmail.com
https://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/
Where does what "all end up"?pigpot wrote:Where does it all end up. Any ideas?
The substance of your reply (quoted above) seems to lack any PLAN except for possibly conjuring up castles in the clouds.pigpot wrote:IAndyK wrote:
...
Until you come up with a bullet-proof plan to eliminate the NEED for an income tax, you are just wasting electrons by arguing against it.
f ---
Can't I ---
If --
About where it is now.pigpot wrote: ... I'm just looking for the end game. Where does it all end up. Any ideas?
Because that's what the elected representatives established as one of the government's sources of revenue and methods of wealth redistribution.pigpot wrote:...
Why must the government take my income away at source without consent for things I may never need?
I am recalling my honeymoon visit to Bath, in England, in 1977. Several of the old houses had "firemarks", showing that you had contracted with an insurance company for fire protection. I recall that Boston, Massachusetts once had a similar system in its early days. If you didn't have fire insurance, you had to pay to have your house fire put out before your house burned to the ground; and if you couldn't -- or if your company's firefighters were busy elsewhere -- too bad for you. I alo recall hearing stories of different fire companies brawling in the streets (while the fvire was raging) to win the exclusive right to extinguish a fire. Eventually, most communities decided that it was best if the community ran the local fire department, whether it be a professional or a volunteer department.AndyK wrote:The substance of your reply (quoted above) seems to lack any PLAN except for possibly conjuring up castles in the clouds.pigpot wrote:IAndyK wrote:
...
Until you come up with a bullet-proof plan to eliminate the NEED for an income tax, you are just wasting electrons by arguing against it.
f ---
Can't I ---
If --
With respect to fee-for-service, perhaps you could research the early days of fire-fighting in Philadelphia, PA, USA.
The fire companies were fee-in-advance-for-service (similar to insurance) and the results were often not pretty.
Also, look into the early turnpikes, ferries, and private bridges and how well they worked.
Finally, let's do a house swap. You are now visiting -- say -- Canada and a Canadian is in your counrty. How does the fee-for-federal-services plan work?
You need to come up with a workable, sustainable plan OR stop whining.
And yet, Pigpot has decided that someone can use the facilities/services/etc. of society without having to contribute to their upkeep via taxes:Pigpot Thu Jul 09, 2015 5:27 am wrote:I'd rather stick to empirical evidence and facts
Pigpot keeps claiming no harm or injury has occurred over and over again when the individual chooses not to pay her/his taxes as though that is fact. Unfortunately for Pigpot it's a "fact" easily proven to be wrong.Pigpot Sat Jul 11, 2015 6:30 am wrote:So the man / woman sends the NOTICE back to it's place of origin stating that he doesn't care about the non-payment of income tax or the threat of Court action as he hasn't harmed another person and therefore no loss, harm or injury has occurred. Remember, that still at this point no-one has had harm, loss or injury occur to them.
That's your idea, pigpot. Without income taxes, everyone would have to pay for water, and people who couldn't afford it wouldn't get water (or would, at best, get water of dubious purity).pigpot wrote:What about the film, "In time". Can't pay? Die. Chairman of Nestle says water is not a human right and it should be privatised. (Watch it on Youtube). Can't PAY for water? DIE. Great idea eh!
Water, for most communities in Greater Boston, comes from the Quabbin Reservoir in western Massachusetts (my Facebook name comes from a mountain in one of the towns flooded in 1939-46 to create Quabbin). Had Quabbin not been built, AT GREAT TAXPAYER EXPENSE, we would be lucky to have water of dubious quality; and even that would have to be filtered and treated AT GREAT TAXPAYER EXPENSE. If we had no government-supplied water supplies, companies like Nestle would surely offer to supply what was needed -- at a rate ensuring a handsome profit for itself, high compensation for its executives and a sexy return on capital for shareholders.Dr. Caligari wrote:That's your idea, pigpot. Without income taxes, everyone would have to pay for water, and people who couldn't afford it wouldn't get water (or would, at best, get water of dubious purity).pigpot wrote:What about the film, "In time". Can't pay? Die. Chairman of Nestle says water is not a human right and it should be privatised. (Watch it on Youtube). Can't PAY for water? DIE. Great idea eh!
In your I-only-use-the-services-I-pay-for world, who would protect you if someone tried to rob you in the street (so they could pay for water)? Would you have to pay for round-the-clock security services?
Excuse my ignorance. What am I paying my rates for and every other tax as well. It seems like a huge bottomless pit (National Debt) which to the more cynical may seem to be keeping them in servitude. Not me, I'm not saying that but that's where this discontent comes from.Pottapaug1938 wrote:Water, for most communities in Greater Boston, comes from the Quabbin Reservoir in western Massachusetts (my Facebook name comes from a mountain in one of the towns flooded in 1939-46 to create Quabbin). Had Quabbin not been built, AT GREAT TAXPAYER EXPENSE, we would be lucky to have water of dubious quality; and even that would have to be filtered and treated AT GREAT TAXPAYER EXPENSE. If we had no government-supplied water supplies, companies like Nestle would surely offer to supply what was needed -- at a rate ensuring a handsome profit for itself, high compensation for its executives and a sexy return on capital for shareholders.Dr. Caligari wrote:That's your idea, pigpot. Without income taxes, everyone would have to pay for water, and people who couldn't afford it wouldn't get water (or would, at best, get water of dubious purity).pigpot wrote:What about the film, "In time". Can't pay? Die. Chairman of Nestle says water is not a human right and it should be privatised. (Watch it on Youtube). Can't PAY for water? DIE. Great idea eh!
In your I-only-use-the-services-I-pay-for world, who would protect you if someone tried to rob you in the street (so they could pay for water)? Would you have to pay for round-the-clock security services?
The tosser Russell Brand? OK Pigpot, stop this, you're scaring me. You've made a comment I agree with and I don't want that to happen again. That road leads to madness.This is where people like the GOODF'ers are turning up and spitting their dummies out at the banks because they don't see fairness in the system. I'm currently quite ambivalent towards the whole thing but these people aren't. Most of them vote for people like the tosser Russell Brand (or more realistically the political puppet he represents) and get upset when they don't win. Well more fool them for voting in the first place I reckon.
Hey I'm not so disagreeable as you may think. The man is a nut job and while some people I know praised him for coming out as part of the "truth movement" I picked him as a liar and a shill. A plant if you will. Conspiracies within conspiracies. He's a true tosser that seemingly craps on his "own" people. The man is a liar and a plant to get people to buy into his lies.Burnaby49 wrote:The tosser Russell Brand? OK Pigpot, stop this, you're scaring me. You've made a comment I agree with and I don't want that to happen again. That road leads to madness.This is where people like the GOODF'ers are turning up and spitting their dummies out at the banks because they don't see fairness in the system. I'm currently quite ambivalent towards the whole thing but these people aren't. Most of them vote for people like the tosser Russell Brand (or more realistically the political puppet he represents) and get upset when they don't win. Well more fool them for voting in the first place I reckon.
If a nation prints more currency, that merely devalues the existing currency in the eyes of the rest of the world.pigpot wrote:
...
Same as the idea of "Nations" borrowing money from the IMF etc. Why aren't they printing money themselves and distributing it interest free. If someone is lent $100,000 and is expected to pay back the principal plus compound interest how are they EVER going to pay back more than they were initially given. The only way is by someone losing out. Call it Africa.
...
Thanks for responding "AndyK" but you didn't respond to the points I made in its entirety. Please don't assume my economic knowledge is lacking as you'd be wrong to think that. Basics 101, more of something devalues it.........AndyK wrote:If a nation prints more currency, that merely devalues the existing currency in the eyes of the rest of the world.pigpot wrote:
...
Same as the idea of "Nations" borrowing money from the IMF etc. Why aren't they printing money themselves and distributing it interest free. If someone is lent $100,000 and is expected to pay back the principal plus compound interest how are they EVER going to pay back more than they were initially given. The only way is by someone losing out. Call it Africa.
...
Thus, said currency now has a lower purchasing power.
In the end, the nation gains nothing and the holders of the currency lose.
Perhaps you should do some basic research into the concepts of money and finance before you pose such inane points.
pigpot wrote:Hey "Wes" you seriously nearly won me over. I can see where your thoughts go. I'm just looking for the end game. Where does it all end up. Any ideas?wserra wrote:As I said before - perhaps somewhat differently - the problem is in the weasel words. "Is it okay" for someone to die for not paying taxes? Of course it isn't "okay". But it takes little in the way of reasoning to see from where you come, and for that reason I too will no longer participate in the sophistry.pigpot wrote:My question is again (and now more structured and very specific) is it okay for the above to happen.
You simply don't like the idea of government. Implicit in government is that obeying laws is not optional. An institution whose precepts are optional isn't a government, it's a church. (Although when religion takes over government, it tends to be far less tolerant than civil authority. But I digress.) A government must have force as the (hopefully) final option, or it does not function as government. Nothing says that you have to like the idea of government. There are certainly places in the world without functioning governments. Do those places appear utopian to you?
So you go ahead and disparage government's use of force to enforce law. Do so from behind the national defense that government provides, the heavily-subsidized medical care that you use, the transportation infrastructure without which we'd be hunter-gatherers, the food supply (and air, and water) the government protects, and while accepting the benefits of the thousands of other things, big and small, that government does. In the places that most of us post from, government evens protects your right to say this dumb stuff.
The usual response to this point is, "Well, I didn't ask for and don't want this stuff". Nonsense. Were that really the case, there are places you could go that don't have them. And even if there weren't, the huge majority of the rest of us do want and do use them. Who put you in charge?
We've seen this all before. It's called "jerking off".
You started this. Are we done?wserra wrote:Where does what "all end up"?
It's like conversing with a child.
Previous citizens of Massachusetts paid to build Quabbin. My current water rates go towards getting the water to me and to making sure that it does not get dangerously polluted in the process.pigpot wrote:Excuse my ignorance. What am I paying my rates for and every other tax as well.Pottapaug1938 wrote:
Water, for most communities in Greater Boston, comes from the Quabbin Reservoir in western Massachusetts (my Facebook name comes from a mountain in one of the towns flooded in 1939-46 to create Quabbin). Had Quabbin not been built, AT GREAT TAXPAYER EXPENSE, we would be lucky to have water of dubious quality; and even that would have to be filtered and treated AT GREAT TAXPAYER EXPENSE. If we had no government-supplied water supplies, companies like Nestle would surely offer to supply what was needed -- at a rate ensuring a handsome profit for itself, high compensation for its executives and a sexy return on capital for shareholders.
So for all the Government demands of taxation to pay for this and that if the people really wanted to have built it theywould have payed for it voluntarily. It's seems the Government wanted "Quabbin" to be built.Pottapaug1938 wrote:Previous citizens of Massachusetts paid to build Quabbin. My current water rates go towards getting the water to me and to making sure that it does not get dangerously polluted in the process.pigpot wrote:Excuse my ignorance. What am I paying my rates for and every other tax as well.Pottapaug1938 wrote:
Water, for most communities in Greater Boston, comes from the Quabbin Reservoir in western Massachusetts (my Facebook name comes from a mountain in one of the towns flooded in 1939-46 to create Quabbin). Had Quabbin not been built, AT GREAT TAXPAYER EXPENSE, we would be lucky to have water of dubious quality; and even that would have to be filtered and treated AT GREAT TAXPAYER EXPENSE. If we had no government-supplied water supplies, companies like Nestle would surely offer to supply what was needed -- at a rate ensuring a handsome profit for itself, high compensation for its executives and a sexy return on capital for shareholders.
As for "every other tax as well", consult your national and local budgets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hhSsIpjtzYJon Stewart's 19 Tough Questions for Libertarians!
Pottapaug1938 wrote: Water, for most communities in Greater Boston, comes from the Quabbin Reservoir in western Massachusetts (my Facebook name comes from a mountain in one of the towns flooded in 1939-46 to create Quabbin). Had Quabbin not been built, AT GREAT TAXPAYER EXPENSE, we would be lucky to have water of dubious quality; and even that would have to be filtered and treated AT GREAT TAXPAYER EXPENSE. If we had no government-supplied water supplies, companies like Nestle would surely offer to supply what was needed -- at a rate ensuring a handsome profit for itself, high compensation for its executives and a sexy return on capital for shareholders.
Previous citizens of Massachusetts paid to build Quabbin. My current water rates go towards getting the water to me and to making sure that it does not get dangerously polluted in the process.Pigpot wrote:Excuse my ignorance. What am I paying my rates for and every other tax as well.
As for "every other tax as well", consult your national and local budgets.
No sh*t, Sherlock! The Massachusetts government wanted Quabbin to be built because the people in Greater Boston needed the water which it would provide; and cities like Worcester were needing water from some of the other sources out that way. The enabling legislation was enacted by Representatives and Senators elected by their constituencies, and signed into a law by a Governor elected the same way. If you truly believe that all of the people who would get Quabbin water would have "payed [sic] for it voluntarily", and that there would be no one who would accept Quabbin water without paying their fair share, your naivete pegs the needle. That goes double if you believe that a private company could have brought about the necessary land takings, during the Great Depression, at a lesser cost than what the Commonwealth of Massachusetts paid.Pigpot wrote:So for all the Government demands of taxation to pay for this and that if the people really wanted to have built it theywould have payed for it voluntarily. It's seems the Government wanted "Quabbin" to be built.