9 Trillion Dollar Debt = Compulsory Tax Burden + IncomeTax

[The Norse Hordes]

If you owe nine thousand dollars, you get your kneecaps broken in dark alleys. If you owe nine trillion dollars, you're leader of the free world.

I guess the US is just planning to test things to see how far it can stretch the debt = power equation.

Im paraphrasing Caeser here, but he said something along the lines of 'If you want your enemies to join you, make sure they cant afford to see you fail'. Basically, he borrowed TONS AND TONS of money from political enemies. So much so that if he didnt succeed, he couldnt pay them back, and theyd be bankrupt.

Honestly, the US is doing the same thing. But I dont think we're doing it on purpose.

[Ordo Mallus]

If you owe nine thousand dollars, you get your kneecaps broken in dark alleys. If you owe nine trillion dollars, you're leader of the free world.

I guess the US is just planning to test things to see how far it can stretch the debt = power equation.

Im paraphrasing Caeser here, but he said something along the lines of 'If you want your enemies to join you, make sure they cant afford to see you fail'. Basically, he borrowed TONS AND TONS of money from political enemies. So much so that if he didnt succeed, he couldnt pay them back, and theyd be bankrupt.

Honestly, the US is doing the same thing. But I dont think we're doing it on purpose.

i think we're doing it but not knowing lol

[H N Fiddlebottoms VIII]

I do like the idea of a National Bake Sale, though.

300 million people, and every last one of you brought Rice Crispies Squares? WHAT THE HELL?!

[New Genoa]

Isn't it obvious? Largest heist ever...the target: the WORLD Bank.

[Pevisopolis]

Legalise pot and tax the crap out of it.

My new solution is to tax the fuck out of the Arms Manufacturing Industry. War is an enormous business, especially in the U.S., and unless the Military-Industrial Bloc is either removed or effectively under control, we will have too many weapons with not enough soldiers, among other problems. By heavily taxing the Arms manufacturing industry in the Private sector, it's effectively killing two birds with one stone.

This, of course, is my "Practical" option, as opposed to my "Idealistic" option, which would be, of course, Anarchist Revolt/Breakaway.

[Hoyteca]

I'd probably move to Canada, secretly raise a secret army of secret super-soldiers secretly and then secretly invade one of those crappy African countries secretly and conquer the hell out of said country. I'd improve the infrastructer on the basis that people want working toilets over nonworking toilets. Any enemies there would probably be too sick from scurvy and AIDS to do anything about it.

The government would be relatively small. I mean, look what having a big government did to America and the Soviet Union. The latter collapsed and the former couldn't buy a 25 cent gumball without millions of dollars worth of paperwork, redtape, and middlemen.

[Arkinesia]

If you owe nine thousand dollars, you get your kneecaps broken in dark alleys. If you owe nine trillion dollars, you're leader of the free world.

I guess the US is just planning to test things to see how far it can stretch the debt = power equation.

"If there is no debt, there is no money."

[Almagarde]

Too bad they havnt realized that Millitary service is actually harmful to the US economy, and the ony Beneficial Choices are to (a) serve 12 hours a week as a Police/Fire/Medic Emergency Services Worker, or (b) leave the US and move to some other country.

[Dododecapod]

If the government attempts to implement any of the above: Shoot all elected officials and seize their property to pay the bill.

[Erich Dahmer]

Is there no "just pay it" option?

How about a "just not pay it" option. Or better yet, a "engage in open revolt" option.

[Yootopia]

Is there no "just pay it" option?

How about a "just not pay it" option. Or better yet, a "engage in open revolt" option.

So you're rebelling about taxation with representation... oh no...

[Erich Dahmer]

Is there no "just pay it" option?

How about a "just not pay it" option. Or better yet, a "engage in open revolt" option.

So you're rebelling about taxation with representation... oh no...

Democracy isn't taxation with representation, it's the majority holding a pistol to minorities' necks' and demanding that minorities work for free. If you support taxation by democracy then you are a parasite and are enslaving minorities.

If I want access to state services I would gladly pay for them but I should not be compelled under threat of violence to contribute to something I don't benefit from.

[Jocabia]

If I want access to state services I would gladly pay for them but I should not be compelled under threat of violence to contribute to something I don't benefit from.

Yes, you do benefit. Not all of the benefits of social programs are direct. For example, social services tend to reduce crime. You benefit from that. It also lowers the cost of some services because theft and/or simply people using them without being able to pay making them less likely to be used when they make sense to be used, but rather out of desperation.

Members of a society make decisions that have an overall benefit to society. Or that's the goal. It's not actually possible to have a society that both protects you from oppression AND makes decision for you as an individual rather than for social reasons.

Also, it should be noted that we are not a direct democracy. We are a republic. It's important to note because it allows our leadership to protect us from the majority at times. Some of the ways they do so include the bill of rights and rulings on mixed race marriages.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

If I want access to state services I would gladly pay for them but I should not be compelled under threat of violence to contribute to something I don't benefit from.

Yes, you do benefit. Not all of the benefits of social programs are direct. For example, social services tend to reduce crime. You benefit from that. It also lowers the cost of some services because theft and/or simply people using them without being able to pay making them less likely to be used when they make sense to be used, but rather out of desperation.

Members of a society make decisions that have an overall benefit to society. Or that's the goal. It's not actually possible to have a society that both protects you from oppression AND makes decision for you as an individual rather than for social reasons.

Also, it should be noted that we are not a direct democracy. We are a republic. It's important to note because it allows our leadership to protect us from the majority at times. Some of the ways they do so include the bill of rights and rulings on mixed race marriages.

Lies! The state can't enforce property rights. They exist because God says so.

[Isale]

So the USA is aiming to increase its foreign debt to 9 trillion dollars by 2020AD. But this means that every citizen will apparently have a high tax burden that they must pay.

What is the Solution?

Bake sale. *nod*

lol.

[DaWoad]

50% desert to Canada rather than work in compulsory labour as part of their tax payment...

ahhh canada is awesome public healthcare and education, lots of geographical change, diversity, lower guncrime rates and a managably sized millitary.

[DaWoad]

Is there no "just pay it" option?

How about a "just not pay it" option. Or better yet, a "engage in open revolt" option.

So you're rebelling about taxation with representation... oh no...

Democracy isn't taxation with representation, it's the majority holding a pistol to minorities' necks' and demanding that minorities work for free. If you support taxation by democracy then you are a parasite and are enslaving minorities.

If I want access to state services I would gladly pay for them but I should not be compelled under threat of violence to contribute to something I don't benefit from.

oh god there is so much wrong with that particular statement.
1-you are not a direct democracy the majority cannot force the minority to work for free.
2-taxation is what keeps your whole life in the relatively comfortable state it's in now by paing for everything from police to water treatment
3-everything you pay for beneifts you in some way or another

[Indecline]

I see that the Americans who chose the "Flee to Canada.." option assume that Canada would be inclined to open its borders to the floods of (broke) American citizens ducking out from the mess that they and their parents created..

[Callisdrun]

Maybe if you trusted your government to do anything properly[...]

What if it can't?

Sounds unlikely.

So does your plan.

Obviously if we start vainly hoping in our government, it will suddenly work efficiently.

Right.

I don't see how it's a vain hope. Since Reagan and probably before, people, esp. Republicans, have been ripping the piss out of the government in an attempt to be witty and glib. Perhaps the constant notion over at least the last 25-30 years that the government is obviously and automatically a shower of shite might be affecting your civil service, who, being normal people, will be hearing this kind of rubbish on a daily basis.

And one does have to wonder about the Republicans who sing that constant song about the evils of government and then fight tooth and nail to be part of it.

Not to mention will howl and scream at you if you dare suggest that there's anything wrong with the US military, which is, as I recall, run by the US government.

The US government can apparently run the world's most powerful military quite well, but supposedly couldn't run a fucking pharmacy. I don't get it.

[Callisdrun]

Is there no "just pay it" option?

How about a "just not pay it" option. Or better yet, a "engage in open revolt" option.

So you're rebelling about taxation with representation... oh no...

Democracy isn't taxation with representation, it's the majority holding a pistol to minorities' necks' and demanding that minorities work for free. If you support taxation by democracy then you are a parasite and are enslaving minorities.

If I want access to state services I would gladly pay for them but I should not be compelled under threat of violence to contribute to something I don't benefit from.

oh god there is so much wrong with that particular statement.
1-you are not a direct democracy the majority cannot force the minority to work for free.
2-taxation is what keeps your whole life in the relatively comfortable state it's in now by paing for everything from police to water treatment
3-everything you pay for beneifts you in some way or another

Taxation is the price of civilization. People should be fucking used to it by now.

[Erich Dahmer]

Is there no "just pay it" option?

How about a "just not pay it" option. Or better yet, a "engage in open revolt" option.

So you're rebelling about taxation with representation... oh no...

Democracy isn't taxation with representation, it's the majority holding a pistol to minorities' necks' and demanding that minorities work for free. If you support taxation by democracy then you are a parasite and are enslaving minorities.

If I want access to state services I would gladly pay for them but I should not be compelled under threat of violence to contribute to something I don't benefit from.

oh god there is so much wrong with that particular statement.
1-you are not a direct democracy the majority cannot force the minority to work for free.
2-taxation is what keeps your whole life in the relatively comfortable state it's in now by paing for everything from police to water treatment
3-everything you pay for beneifts you in some way or another

1-It doesn't matter. As long as congress can violently extort labor from people it's slavery. Slavery to a lesser degree but the difference between a man and a slave is choice. Also, democracy in any form is based on a logical fallacy.
2-When was the last time the police actually helped you? Police don't exist to protect or serve; they exist to issue fines, steal (sieze) property, beat, harrass, threaten, and kill and basically keep people in line with a big stick. And the courts have upheld this view as pointed out by Skeptikosia:

Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away, and even if they do they have no affirmative duty to protect.

Castle Rock v Gonzales

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court ruled, 7-2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.

Warren v District of Columbia

Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a U.S. Court of Appeals case in which three rape victims sued the District of Columbia because of negligence on the part of the police. Two of three female roommates were upstairs when they heard men break in and attack the third. After repeated calls to the police over half an hour, the roommate's screams stopped, and they assumed the police had arrived. They went downstairs and were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, and forced to commit sexual acts upon one another and to submit to the attackers' sexual demands for 14 hours. The police had lost track of the repeated calls for assistance. DC's highest court ruled that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals, and absolved the police and the city of any liability.[2]

Ford v Grafton

A negligence claim brought against a town pursuant to G. L. c. 258, for a police department's repeated disregard of its responsibility to protect the plaintiff from her former husband against whom she had a G. L. c. 209A restraining order, was barred by the provisions of G. L. c. 258, s. 20(h) and (j), as amended by St. 1993, c. 495, s. 57, where the protective order did not constitute a specific and explicit assurance of safety within the meaning of s. 10(j)(1) [723-725]; where the exception under s. 10(j)(2) did not apply [725]; and where G. L. c. 209A contained no language that could create a cause of action under the saving clause of G. L. c. 258, s. 10 [725-726].

DeShaney v. Winnebago County

In 1980, a divorce court in Wyoming gave custody of Joshua DeShaney, born in 1979, to his father Randy DeShaney, who moved to Winnebago County, Wisconsin. A police report of child abuse and a hospital visit in January, 1983, prompted the county Department of Social Services (DSS) to obtain a court order to keep the boy in the hospital's custody. Three days later, "On the recommendation of a "child protection team," consisting of a pediatrician, a psychologist, a police detective, the county's lawyer, several DSS caseworkers, and various hospital personnel, the juvenile court dismissed the case and returned the boy to the custody of his father."[1] The DSS entered an agreement with the boy's father, and five times throughout 1983, a DSS social worker visited the DeShaney home and recorded suspicion of child abuse and that the father was not complying with the agreement's terms. No action was taken; the DSS also took no action to remove the boy from his father's custody after a hospital reported child abuse suspicions to them in November, 1983.[2]. Visits in January and March, 1984, in which the worker was told Joshua was too ill to see her, also resulted in no action. Following the March, 1984, visit, "Randy DeShaney beat 4-year-old Joshua so severely that he fell into a life-threatening coma. Emergency brain surgery revealed a series of hemorrhages caused by traumatic injuries to the head inflicted over a long period of time. Joshua did not die, but he suffered brain damage so severe that he is expected to spend the rest of his life confined to an institution for the profoundly retarded. Randy DeShaney was subsequently tried and convicted of child abuse."[3] Randy DeShaney served less than two years in jail. He currently resides in Appleton, WI.

3-Prove it. Prove that every state program that so much as one cent of my taxes goes to benefits me. Even the optional stuff that I may or may not be in favor of. Like the elective wars or the ESA jumping on a newly discovered fairy shrimp in the Idaho desert.

[Erich Dahmer]

Is there no "just pay it" option?

How about a "just not pay it" option. Or better yet, a "engage in open revolt" option.

So you're rebelling about taxation with representation... oh no...

Democracy isn't taxation with representation, it's the majority holding a pistol to minorities' necks' and demanding that minorities work for free. If you support taxation by democracy then you are a parasite and are enslaving minorities.

If I want access to state services I would gladly pay for them but I should not be compelled under threat of violence to contribute to something I don't benefit from.

oh god there is so much wrong with that particular statement.
1-you are not a direct democracy the majority cannot force the minority to work for free.
2-taxation is what keeps your whole life in the relatively comfortable state it's in now by paing for everything from police to water treatment
3-everything you pay for beneifts you in some way or another

Taxation is the price of civilization. People should be fucking used to it by now.

The state and democracy are the opposite of civilized. They are barbaric theft plain and simple. And don't give me that "I prefer 'extrotion'. The X makes it sound cool" bit. Extortion is a crime because it robs people of the product of their labor and when you take someone's labor you are forcing them to work for free. There is a word for that, slavery.

[Valanora]

At this point, I think the Government needs to just default on its' debt and cut whatever losses from there. There is no way to balance the budget with all that interest from the debt we owe whilst still maintaining a functional society with basic needs and services.

[Blargaflarg]

Maybe if you trusted your government to do anything properly[...]

What if it can't?

We'll never know, because we have a hundred million lunatics running around screaming "TEH GUV'MINT IS COMING TO GET YOUR [good thing]!" That's a hundred million for each good thing, with sizable overlap.

[Erich Dahmer]

At this point, I think the Government needs to just default on its' debt and cut whatever losses from there. There is no way to balance the budget with all that interest from the debt we owe whilst still maintaining a functional society with basic needs and services.

This assumes that a coercive monopoly is required to run society. It also assumes that people are too stupid to govern themselves. I suggest you change your attitude. Petulance does not become you.