NationStates

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:45 pm**

Yandere Schoolgirls wrote:
Conscentia wrote:Then how do you expect the state to continue to function without taxes?

My stance is that taxes are theft, yes, but they're necessary evil. Taxes in the US, and around the world have become excessive. People shouldn't have to pay for services, nationwide, that they're using nor reap any direct benefit from.

How can they be theft when they're legal?

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:47 pm**

The Black Forrest wrote:
Yandere Schoolgirls wrote:Sales tax. Ex. Roads should be funded by gas tax, car tax, toll booths and through donations or fundraisers.

I can image toll booths on LA freeways.

Hell around here they would bring traffic to a crawl.

Usury taxes? Nahh... I would rather take your money.

How long do you think I'm going to let you take before I decide to fight back? 3..5..maybe 8 years?

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:48 pm**

Khadgar wrote:
Conscentia wrote:Hang on. If the police are private, who's there to stop the private police force from demanding people pay additional taxes?

Pure motherfucking magic.

Or a perpetual motion machine.

Simpsons Reference

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:48 pm**

Yandere Schoolgirls wrote:
Great Nepal wrote:And how should army and bureaucracy be funded?

Tariffs and taxes on drugs, prostitution and other discouraging behaviors.

So, there should be mandatory taxes other than sale taxes when they are not "they're using nor reap any direct benefit from it"?
Who determines what behaviours should be discouraged?

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:48 pm**

Yandere Schoolgirls wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:

I can image toll booths on LA freeways.

Hell around here they would bring traffic to a crawl.

Usury taxes? Nahh... I would rather take your money.

How long do you think I'm going to let you take before I decide to fight back? 3..5..maybe 8 years?

How long do you plan on staying alive? About that long.

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:49 pm**

Yandere Schoolgirls wrote:
Great Nepal wrote:And how should army and bureaucracy be funded?

Tariffs and taxes on drugs, prostitution and other discouraging behaviors.

Problem is is that those earnings are dynamic and does not automaticly fullfill an army's need.

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:49 pm**

Ifreann wrote:
Yandere Schoolgirls wrote:My stance is that taxes are theft, yes, but they're necessary evil. Taxes in the US, and around the world have become excessive. People shouldn't have to pay for services, nationwide, that they're using nor reap any direct benefit from.

How can they be theft when they're legal?

Because definitions are established by statist as giant conspiracy to oppress the masses and hence are irrelevant.

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:49 pm**

Yandere Schoolgirls wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:

I can image toll booths on LA freeways.

Hell around here they would bring traffic to a crawl.

Usury taxes? Nahh... I would rather take your money.

How long do you think I'm going to let you take before I decide to fight back? 3..5..maybe 8 years?

As long as you have a "real" job; I will be taking from you. Well somebody will get your money or some military funding, etc.

You have every right to shake your fist at the sky. If it reduces your blood pressure, by all means.....

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:50 pm**

Yandere Schoolgirls wrote:
Great Nepal wrote:And how should army and bureaucracy be funded?

Tariffs and taxes on drugs, prostitution and other discouraging behaviors.

1.Put tax choice in place.
2.Split "Defense" into 2 categories,Offensive and Defensive.(Actually do it,not just pretend to)
3.See how you'll end up with 0 Offensive Spending.
4.Most of the problem is solved.

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:51 pm**

Yandere Schoolgirls wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:

I can image toll booths on LA freeways.

Hell around here they would bring traffic to a crawl.

Usury taxes? Nahh... I would rather take your money.

How long do you think I'm going to let you take before I decide to fight back? 3..5..maybe 8 years?

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:52 pm**

Yandere Schoolgirls wrote:
Great Nepal wrote:And how should army and bureaucracy be funded?

Tariffs and taxes on drugs, prostitution and other discouraging behaviors.

But just because I want to sniff cocaine and have sex with prostitutes doesn't mean I want ton fund the army. And shouldn't things only by funded by those who actually directly use them (according to you, anyway).

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:52 pm**

I want Yandere to respond to this:

Conscentia wrote:Hang on. If the police are private, who's there to stop the private police force from demanding people pay additional taxes?

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:52 pm**

Great Nepal wrote:
Yandere Schoolgirls wrote:Tariffs and taxes on drugs, prostitution and other discouraging behaviors.

So, there should be mandatory taxes other than sale taxes when they are not "they're using nor reap any direct benefit from it"?
Who determines what behaviours should be discouraged?

The common defense provided by Army as a means to preserving liberty benefits the common good of us all by protecting our shores from major threats at home and abroad.

I don't feel I should get into the whys or how should we determine which behaviours are discouraging and deserved a sales tax slapped on them, but it's generally agreed that drugs, sex, luxury items and pornography are bad "behaviours" and thus those are the behaviours that should be taxed in order to discourage them and as well build revenue for the federal government and the army(which should be cut drastically in size)

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:53 pm**

Great Nepal wrote:
Yandere Schoolgirls wrote:Tariffs and taxes on drugs, prostitution and other discouraging behaviors.

So, there should be mandatory taxes other than sale taxes when they are not "they're using nor reap any direct benefit from it"?
Who determines what behaviours should be discouraged?

Baibul of course.

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:54 pm**

Yandere Schoolgirls wrote:
Great Nepal wrote:So, there should be mandatory taxes other than sale taxes when they are not "they're using nor reap any direct benefit from it"?
Who determines what behaviours should be discouraged?

The common defense provided by Army as a means to preserving liberty benefits the common good of us all by protecting our shores from major threats at home and abroad.

I don't feel I should get into the whys or how should we determine which behaviours are discouraging and deserved a sales tax slapped on them, but it's generally agreed that drugs, sex, luxury items and pornography are bad "behaviours" and thus those are the behaviours that should be taxed in order to discourage them and as well build revenue for the federal government and the army(which should be cut drastically in size)

Again, those earnings are dynamic, and cannot always fullfill an army's financial need.

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:54 pm**

Yandere Schoolgirls wrote:
Great Nepal wrote:So, there should be mandatory taxes other than sale taxes when they are not "they're using nor reap any direct benefit from it"?
Who determines what behaviours should be discouraged?

The common defense provided by Army as a means to preserving liberty benefits the common good of us all by protecting our shores from major threats at home and abroad.

I don't feel I should get into the whys or how should we determine which behaviours are discouraging and deserved a sales tax slapped on them, but it's generally agreed that drugs, sex, luxury items and pornography are bad "behaviours" and thus those are the behaviours that should be taxed in order to discourage them and as well build revenue for the federal government and the army(which should be cut drastically in size)

Common good? Since when did you care for the common good?
Having a national police force, compulsory national education, universal healthcare, paid for simply with taxes is for the common good.

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:54 pm**

So what do you guys think about this?

How does this sound?

Voluntaryism kind of sounds right somehow.

Compulsive taxation should be reduced to the bare minimum.Other than that,there should be a free (but minimally regulated) market where you can choose between the private or the public sector.

So,to wrap it all up.Here's a concept which allows the citizens to choose how big or small their Govt is,while at the same time guaranteeing basic benefits.

Tax Phase 1
A very low tax rate is mandatory for everyone.Should be really low.Let's call this a minimum mandatory tax (MMT).This ensures the very bare minimum of public benefits (such as public roads).

Tax Phase 2
A minimum level of livelihood (MLL) will be set in place.This sets a standard for access to basic food,water,sanitation,shelter,healthcare,education,physical security,social security - so on and so forth.It reflects the citizens' basic necessities.It is universal,meaning that it's the same for everybody.The MLL is something that the government guarantees no matter what.

Now you have 3 options:

Route A: Choose not to use the public sector at all to meet MLL requirements = Pay no taxes at all. (except for the MMT)

If you choose to go this way,you will first have to prove that you can afford to pay for your privately-sourced MLL. Then you will have to prove that you are actually meeting MLL requirements.This would be achieved by having to show the Government contracts with private companies that guarantee your MLL (such as the minimum set level of health insurance,social security,and so on).

Overview: You will not receive any public benefits at all other than what is covered by the MMT.

Route B: Choose to use both the public sector and the private sector to meet MLL requirements = Pay taxes proportional to the public benefits you receive.(+MMT)

You choose what percent of your income/assets' value/so and so forth/ you want to pay to the public sector as tax.You receive public benefits proportional to what you pay,and you choose the exact benefits (and how much of them) you want to receive (for example you can choose public education while relying on the private sector for your healthcare).If the percentage you choose to pay as tax isn't sufficient and/or your choice doesn't fulfill MLL requirements,then you will first have to prove that you can afford to pay for the rest of the benefits that are required to meet the MLL that you want to receive from the private sector.Then you will have to prove that you are actually meeting MLL requirements.This would be achieved by having to show the Government contracts with private companies that guarantee the rest of your MLL requirements (such as the minimum set level of health insurance,social security,and so on) are met.

Overview: You will choose what you want to receive from the public sector and what you want from the private sector.Your public benefits are proportional to how much you pay.

Route C: Choose to use the public sector only to meet MLL requirements = Pay taxes proportional to the public benefits you receive. (+MMT)

You choose what percent of your income/assets' value/so and so forth/ you want to pay to the public sector as tax.You receive public benefits proportional to what you pay,and you choose the exact benefits (and how much of them) you want to receive.If the percentage you choose to pay as tax is sufficient AND your choice fulfills MLL requirements,then there is nothing else to prove.From this point you can source anything above the MLL either from the public or the private sector,it's up to you.

Overview: Your MLL will be guaranteed by the taxes you pay.Your benefits are still proportional to how much you pay,meaning that the rest of your taxes that aren't taken up by the cost of the MLL are publicly-sourced extras on top of the MLL (such as a more comprehensive public healthcare insurance,a larger pension for you public social security,so on and so forth) which are also chosen by you.

The whole system and all private companies whose products/services ensure the citizens' MLL are carefully monitored and controlled by the Government.Although their contracts can be long-term,these companies are obliged to pay the cost of their clients' publicly-sourced MLL equivalent to the Government periodically - for example - each year.At the end of each year,this is rebated back to the companies.This ensures that in the event in which such a company would go bankrupt or for whatever other reason would be unable/unwilling/whatever to ensure its clients' MLL,then its' contracts will be terminated,publicly provided MLL will replace its' services for the year,and then when the year ended the citizen would have the option of either choosing another private provider or switching over to publicly sourced benefits.

For those that can't afford even the publicly sourced MLL,the Government will take a 3 step approach:

1.Providing career conciliation/reorientation,else
2.Employment in public institutions with payment in public benefits over money so as to reach MLL (note this is actually self-sustainable),else
3.Accepting whatever the citizen can afford and funding the difference to what is needed to achieve the MLL.

Repeat as needed.

Doesn't sound too bad now does it?

Not exactly the soulless free-for-all capitalist arena that you'd expect from a concept which involves such a degree of public/private market freedom and tax choice.

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:55 pm**

Republica Newland wrote:So what do you guys think about this?

How does this sound?

Voluntaryism kind of sounds right somehow.

Compulsive taxation should be reduced to the bare minimum.Other than that,there should be a free (but minimally regulated) market where you can choose between the private or the public sector.

So,to wrap it all up.Here's a concept which allows the citizens to choose how big or small their Govt is,while at the same time guaranteeing basic benefits.

Tax Phase 1
A very low tax rate is mandatory for everyone.Should be really low.Let's call this a minimum mandatory tax (MMT).This ensures the very bare minimum of public benefits (such as public roads).

Tax Phase 2
A minimum level of livelihood (MLL) will be set in place.This sets a standard for access to basic food,water,sanitation,shelter,healthcare,education,physical security,social security - so on and so forth.It reflects the citizens' basic necessities.It is universal,meaning that it's the same for everybody.The MLL is something that the government guarantees no matter what.

Now you have 3 options:

Route A: Choose not to use the public sector at all to meet MLL requirements = Pay no taxes at all. (except for the MMT)

If you choose to go this way,you will first have to prove that you can afford to pay for your privately-sourced MLL. Then you will have to prove that you are actually meeting MLL requirements.This would be achieved by having to show the Government contracts with private companies that guarantee your MLL (such as the minimum set level of health insurance,social security,and so on).

Overview: You will not receive any public benefits at all other than what is covered by the MMT.

Route B: Choose to use both the public sector and the private sector to meet MLL requirements = Pay taxes proportional to the public benefits you receive.(+MMT)

You choose what percent of your income/assets' value/so and so forth/ you want to pay to the public sector as tax.You receive public benefits proportional to what you pay,and you choose the exact benefits (and how much of them) you want to receive (for example you can choose public education while relying on the private sector for your healthcare).If the percentage you choose to pay as tax isn't sufficient and/or your choice doesn't fulfill MLL requirements,then you will first have to prove that you can afford to pay for the rest of the benefits that are required to meet the MLL that you want to receive from the private sector.Then you will have to prove that you are actually meeting MLL requirements.This would be achieved by having to show the Government contracts with private companies that guarantee the rest of your MLL requirements (such as the minimum set level of health insurance,social security,and so on) are met.

Overview: You will choose what you want to receive from the public sector and what you want from the private sector.Your public benefits are proportional to how much you pay.

Route C: Choose to use the public sector only to meet MLL requirements = Pay taxes proportional to the public benefits you receive. (+MMT)

You choose what percent of your income/assets' value/so and so forth/ you want to pay to the public sector as tax.You receive public benefits proportional to what you pay,and you choose the exact benefits (and how much of them) you want to receive.If the percentage you choose to pay as tax is sufficient AND your choice fulfills MLL requirements,then there is nothing else to prove.From this point you can source anything above the MLL either from the public or the private sector,it's up to you.

Overview: Your MLL will be guaranteed by the taxes you pay.Your benefits are still proportional to how much you pay,meaning that the rest of your taxes that aren't taken up by the cost of the MLL are publicly-sourced extras on top of the MLL (such as a more comprehensive public healthcare insurance,a larger pension for you public social security,so on and so forth) which are also chosen by you.

The whole system and all private companies whose products/services ensure the citizens' MLL are carefully monitored and controlled by the Government.Although their contracts can be long-term,these companies are obliged to pay the cost of their clients' publicly-sourced MLL equivalent to the Government periodically - for example - each year.At the end of each year,this is rebated back to the companies.This ensures that in the event in which such a company would go bankrupt or for whatever other reason would be unable/unwilling/whatever to ensure its clients' MLL,then its' contracts will be terminated,publicly provided MLL will replace its' services for the year,and then when the year ended the citizen would have the option of either choosing another private provider or switching over to publicly sourced benefits.

For those that can't afford even the publicly sourced MLL,the Government will take a 3 step approach:

1.Providing career conciliation/reorientation,else
2.Employment in public institutions with payment in public benefits over money so as to reach MLL (note this is actually self-sustainable),else
3.Accepting whatever the citizen can afford and funding the difference to what is needed to achieve the MLL.

Repeat as needed.

Doesn't sound too bad now does it? Not exactly the soulless free-for-all capitalist arena that you'd expect from a concept which involves such a degree of public/private market freedom and tax choice.

Sounds horrible. 0/10.

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:57 pm**

Divair wrote:
Republica Newland wrote:So what do you guys think about this?

How does this sound?

Voluntaryism kind of sounds right somehow.

Compulsive taxation should be reduced to the bare minimum.Other than that,there should be a free (but minimally regulated) market where you can choose between the private or the public sector.

So,to wrap it all up.Here's a concept which allows the citizens to choose how big or small their Govt is,while at the same time guaranteeing basic benefits.

Tax Phase 1
A very low tax rate is mandatory for everyone.Should be really low.Let's call this a minimum mandatory tax (MMT).This ensures the very bare minimum of public benefits (such as public roads).

Tax Phase 2
A minimum level of livelihood (MLL) will be set in place.This sets a standard for access to basic food,water,sanitation,shelter,healthcare,education,physical security,social security - so on and so forth.It reflects the citizens' basic necessities.It is universal,meaning that it's the same for everybody.The MLL is something that the government guarantees no matter what.

Now you have 3 options:

Route A: Choose not to use the public sector at all to meet MLL requirements = Pay no taxes at all. (except for the MMT)

If you choose to go this way,you will first have to prove that you can afford to pay for your privately-sourced MLL. Then you will have to prove that you are actually meeting MLL requirements.This would be achieved by having to show the Government contracts with private companies that guarantee your MLL (such as the minimum set level of health insurance,social security,and so on).

Overview: You will not receive any public benefits at all other than what is covered by the MMT.

Route B: Choose to use both the public sector and the private sector to meet MLL requirements = Pay taxes proportional to the public benefits you receive.(+MMT)

You choose what percent of your income/assets' value/so and so forth/ you want to pay to the public sector as tax.You receive public benefits proportional to what you pay,and you choose the exact benefits (and how much of them) you want to receive (for example you can choose public education while relying on the private sector for your healthcare).If the percentage you choose to pay as tax isn't sufficient and/or your choice doesn't fulfill MLL requirements,then you will first have to prove that you can afford to pay for the rest of the benefits that are required to meet the MLL that you want to receive from the private sector.Then you will have to prove that you are actually meeting MLL requirements.This would be achieved by having to show the Government contracts with private companies that guarantee the rest of your MLL requirements (such as the minimum set level of health insurance,social security,and so on) are met.

Overview: You will choose what you want to receive from the public sector and what you want from the private sector.Your public benefits are proportional to how much you pay.

Route C: Choose to use the public sector only to meet MLL requirements = Pay taxes proportional to the public benefits you receive. (+MMT)

You choose what percent of your income/assets' value/so and so forth/ you want to pay to the public sector as tax.You receive public benefits proportional to what you pay,and you choose the exact benefits (and how much of them) you want to receive.If the percentage you choose to pay as tax is sufficient AND your choice fulfills MLL requirements,then there is nothing else to prove.From this point you can source anything above the MLL either from the public or the private sector,it's up to you.

Overview: Your MLL will be guaranteed by the taxes you pay.Your benefits are still proportional to how much you pay,meaning that the rest of your taxes that aren't taken up by the cost of the MLL are publicly-sourced extras on top of the MLL (such as a more comprehensive public healthcare insurance,a larger pension for you public social security,so on and so forth) which are also chosen by you.

The whole system and all private companies whose products/services ensure the citizens' MLL are carefully monitored and controlled by the Government.Although their contracts can be long-term,these companies are obliged to pay the cost of their clients' publicly-sourced MLL equivalent to the Government periodically - for example - each year.At the end of each year,this is rebated back to the companies.This ensures that in the event in which such a company would go bankrupt or for whatever other reason would be unable/unwilling/whatever to ensure its clients' MLL,then its' contracts will be terminated,publicly provided MLL will replace its' services for the year,and then when the year ended the citizen would have the option of either choosing another private provider or switching over to publicly sourced benefits.

For those that can't afford even the publicly sourced MLL,the Government will take a 3 step approach:

1.Providing career conciliation/reorientation,else
2.Employment in public institutions with payment in public benefits over money so as to reach MLL (note this is actually self-sustainable),else
3.Accepting whatever the citizen can afford and funding the difference to what is needed to achieve the MLL.

Repeat as needed.

Doesn't sound too bad now does it? Not exactly the soulless free-for-all capitalist arena that you'd expect from a concept which involves such a degree of public/private market freedom and tax choice.

Sounds horrible. 0/10.

Facepalm. Do you always respond like this on NS?

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:58 pm**

Republica Newland wrote:
Divair wrote:Sounds horrible. 0/10.

Facepalm. Do you always respond like this on NS?

When I'm tired and a poster keeps posting the same crap? Yes. Absolutely. Most of us do.

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:58 pm**

Republica Newland wrote:
Divair wrote:Sounds horrible. 0/10.

Facepalm. Do you always respond like this on NS?

Get used to it, this is even the mild form.

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:59 pm**

Yandere Schoolgirls wrote:
Great Nepal wrote:So, there should be mandatory taxes other than sale taxes when they are not "they're using nor reap any direct benefit from it"?
Who determines what behaviours should be discouraged?

The common defense provided by Army as a means to preserving liberty benefits the common good of us all by protecting our shores from major threats at home and abroad.

I don't feel I should get into the whys or how should we determine which behaviours are discouraging and deserved a sales tax slapped on them, but it's generally agreed that drugs, sex, luxury items and pornography are bad "behaviours" and thus those are the behaviours that should be taxed in order to discourage them and as well build revenue for the federal government and the army(which should be cut drastically in size)

Since this is common good, why not tax everyone?
No, not everyone agrees with that definition. Especially not the people engaging in it.

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:59 pm**

Republica Newland wrote:So what do you guys think about this?

How does this sound?

Voluntaryism kind of sounds right somehow.

Compulsive taxation should be reduced to the bare minimum.Other than that,there should be a free (but minimally regulated) market where you can choose between the private or the public sector.

So,to wrap it all up.Here's a concept which allows the citizens to choose how big or small their Govt is,while at the same time guaranteeing basic benefits.

Tax Phase 1
A very low tax rate is mandatory for everyone.Should be really low.Let's call this a minimum mandatory tax (MMT).This ensures the very bare minimum of public benefits (such as public roads).

Tax Phase 2
A minimum level of livelihood (MLL) will be set in place.This sets a standard for access to basic food,water,sanitation,shelter,healthcare,education,physical security,social security - so on and so forth.It reflects the citizens' basic necessities.It is universal,meaning that it's the same for everybody.The MLL is something that the government guarantees no matter what.

Now you have 3 options:

Route A: Choose not to use the public sector at all to meet MLL requirements = Pay no taxes at all. (except for the MMT)

If you choose to go this way,you will first have to prove that you can afford to pay for your privately-sourced MLL. Then you will have to prove that you are actually meeting MLL requirements.This would be achieved by having to show the Government contracts with private companies that guarantee your MLL (such as the minimum set level of health insurance,social security,and so on).

Overview: You will not receive any public benefits at all other than what is covered by the MMT.

Route B: Choose to use both the public sector and the private sector to meet MLL requirements = Pay taxes proportional to the public benefits you receive.(+MMT)

You choose what percent of your income/assets' value/so and so forth/ you want to pay to the public sector as tax.You receive public benefits proportional to what you pay,and you choose the exact benefits (and how much of them) you want to receive (for example you can choose public education while relying on the private sector for your healthcare).If the percentage you choose to pay as tax isn't sufficient and/or your choice doesn't fulfill MLL requirements,then you will first have to prove that you can afford to pay for the rest of the benefits that are required to meet the MLL that you want to receive from the private sector.Then you will have to prove that you are actually meeting MLL requirements.This would be achieved by having to show the Government contracts with private companies that guarantee the rest of your MLL requirements (such as the minimum set level of health insurance,social security,and so on) are met.

Overview: You will choose what you want to receive from the public sector and what you want from the private sector.Your public benefits are proportional to how much you pay.

Route C: Choose to use the public sector only to meet MLL requirements = Pay taxes proportional to the public benefits you receive. (+MMT)

You choose what percent of your income/assets' value/so and so forth/ you want to pay to the public sector as tax.You receive public benefits proportional to what you pay,and you choose the exact benefits (and how much of them) you want to receive.If the percentage you choose to pay as tax is sufficient AND your choice fulfills MLL requirements,then there is nothing else to prove.From this point you can source anything above the MLL either from the public or the private sector,it's up to you.

Overview: Your MLL will be guaranteed by the taxes you pay.Your benefits are still proportional to how much you pay,meaning that the rest of your taxes that aren't taken up by the cost of the MLL are publicly-sourced extras on top of the MLL (such as a more comprehensive public healthcare insurance,a larger pension for you public social security,so on and so forth) which are also chosen by you.

The whole system and all private companies whose products/services ensure the citizens' MLL are carefully monitored and controlled by the Government.Although their contracts can be long-term,these companies are obliged to pay the cost of their clients' publicly-sourced MLL equivalent to the Government periodically - for example - each year.At the end of each year,this is rebated back to the companies.This ensures that in the event in which such a company would go bankrupt or for whatever other reason would be unable/unwilling/whatever to ensure its clients' MLL,then its' contracts will be terminated,publicly provided MLL will replace its' services for the year,and then when the year ended the citizen would have the option of either choosing another private provider or switching over to publicly sourced benefits.

For those that can't afford even the publicly sourced MLL,the Government will take a 3 step approach:

1.Providing career conciliation/reorientation,else
2.Employment in public institutions with payment in public benefits over money so as to reach MLL (note this is actually self-sustainable),else
3.Accepting whatever the citizen can afford and funding the difference to what is needed to achieve the MLL.

Repeat as needed.

Doesn't sound too bad now does it? Not exactly the soulless free-for-all capitalist arena that you'd expect from a concept which involves such a degree of public/private market freedom and tax choice.

I award you no points, and have sent people to make sure your parents refrain from further breeding.

Deregulation has caused nothing but chaos in the economic sector, The Invisible Hand is giving the nation the finger, and I honestly have no wish to be beholden to the stakeholder's whims.

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:01 pm**

Republica Newland wrote:
Divair wrote:Sounds horrible. 0/10.

Facepalm. Do you always respond like this on NS?

Usually we are more snarky, but we're concentrating our mean-spirited sarcasm on someone else.

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:02 pm**

Conscentia wrote:I want Yandere to respond to this:
Conscentia wrote:Hang on. If the police are private, who's there to stop the private police force from demanding people pay additional taxes?

This is the last thing I will respond to.

They're a few things that will stop a private police from becoming a rowdy gang of bandits. Bandits have plagued anarchists since the dawn of time, and, as such, are their mortal enemies.

The army or the local militia can step up to the task of carrying out justice on corrupt private citizens.

Local Governments could be allowed to establish a local police force

People can, say, move into town and vote overwhelmingly for the establishment of a public police force funded by a sort of income tax. Though, I'm against income taxes, it would be alright in my opinion if small community had a majority that wouldn't mind income taxes in exchanged for a public police force.

It works better, because it's a local law, confined maybe to a town or small municipality where the benefits of such an institution would be more obvious. People who don't like the law could easily move out into another county or a state.

It's a lot different than forcing an entire country into an income tax where people pay for services that benefit people thousands of miles away from that, and it's more sensible too.

NationStates

Taxes are theft