Only 10% Don't Pay Federal Taxes, Stop Complaining

[The Adrian Empire]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html?src=me&ref=business

But the modifiers here — federal and income — are important. Income taxes aren’t the only kind of federal taxes that people pay. There are also payroll taxes and investment taxes, among others. And, of course, people pay state and local taxes, too.

Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47.

So stop bitching about how 47% of American's don't pay taxes, perhaps income taxes, but there are other federal taxes, not to mention state and local taxes as well.

In addition, the argument that the wealthy are paying for the entire burden is ridiculous:

There is no question that the wealthy pay a higher overall tax rate than any other group. That is an American tradition. But there is also no question that their tax rates have fallen more than any other group’s over the last three decades. The only reason they are paying more taxes than in the past is that their pretax incomes have risen so rapidly — which hardly seems a great rationale for a further tax cut.

While they are paying for a good chunk of it, their income has grown the fastest, and their tax rates have dropped significantly.

I would prefer to "bitch" that we are taxed at all, I personally don't care what percentage don't pay income tax or any federal tax, though I would much prefer flat taxation if it must be, I care more that any hardworking person is forced to pay the government at all.
Now don't get me wrong, I do believe the government has a legitimate purpose, and that taxation may be a necessary evil to fund it, but I would prefer a system of voluntary taxation.

Forgive me if this sounds insane, but wouldn't it be indeed better that a person could choose how much money he or she gives to the government each year, why it could be from 0% to 99% if they so choose, if a person so believes the state to be operating to their satisfaction there is no reason he wouldn't pay for it if he is capable, the person would know that if he does not support the state, it will not be able to support him.
So I would suspect that he would come to a fair decision on what he was willing to pay, not much unlike a charity really, if he feels that he can't spare the money well then he can't end of story, no men in black suits coming to bar his house from him. But he would be under the realization that his lack of payment may hinder the governments services.
Regardless of your views this system works:
If man is selfish and self-serving, then he has to lose by not paying his taxes through all the services provided to him, since without funds they will be gone, and if he should want them back then he will learn the lesson of it and pay for his services the next year round.
If man is altruistic at heart, then he will obviously support the system with all or most of his income, thus no problems with funding should arise.
If man is neither and both, then the system will go as it does today, with those dutifully paying their taxes and those dodging them, the government will however remain at peril to it's people.

Alright I want you to ask 1,000 people if they would just give money away, to have a service they may not use or have immediate benefits for.
The reason we wouldn't do volunteer is do you know who would pay taxes, no one.

Precisely, man is self-serving, if you so believe your previous statement; then the government shall go bankrupt, and the private industry will replace it, as market forces must and will supply a demand. No harm, no foul. If you then will reply that the poor will have no services, then you do not believe that man is alone self-serving as you would tend for your weak, whether this care is administered by private charities or public officials is of little consequence.
Edit: Also private insurance companies make a killing on just that promise of provision do they not?

Then how in God's name do you explain why we need government in the first place? If man's self-service rules all then it should. Whatever. I believe what he was saying is subscription based services. If there is a demand for the services, people need them, which is the only reason the government should provide them in the first place... then people would be willing to subscribe to them.

I laugh at people who think the private industry would just take over all the rolls the government has. If that was true then it would have when man had begun developing society, what is shown though is man towards Socialism, I will not specify which type but they do.
As to your post about self-serving Mans need to be self serving has led them to create a society to protect them selves from those stronger who wanted to be self-serving and therefore also hurting themselves, the view point of, if I can't do it nobody can.
Not all of mankind is self serving but the number that isn't is very small and usually heavily disliked by society at large, which ends with them being assassinated or executed in some way.

Then those 1000 volunteers will willingly provide money to the government. As man tends towards socialism in your mind (and I gravely disagree) he must then be altruistic, or otherwise he would not care for the poor. Further if you don't believe that the majority are altruistic, then man does not tend towards socialism, but is being led their by the reigns of tyrants.

Either way you cannot legitimize taking someone's money because they wouldn't give it to you willingly, no more then can the beggar legitimize robbing another because he would not willingly part with his change.

[Muravyets]

I laugh at people who think the private industry would just take over all the rolls the government has. If that was true then it would have when man had begun developing society, what is shown though is man towards Socialism, I will not specify which type but they do.
As to your post about self-serving Mans need to be self serving has led them to create a society to protect them selves from those stronger who wanted to be self-serving and therefore also hurting themselves, the view point of, if I can't do it nobody can.
Not all of mankind is self serving but the number that isn't is very small and usually heavily disliked by society at large, which ends with them being assassinated or executed in some way.

I find people who worship the free market fairy amusing as well. I especially enjoy their wide-eyed optimism that "The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow." Their entire world view is set in the future. They never tell us what does happen now or what has happened in the past. They only tell us what WILL happen on that great day when the world magically becomes what they wish it was. Thus, private industry WILL step in to replace government -- utterly disregarding the fact that private industry has NEVER replaced any part of government despite having numerous chances to do so in history.

But you see, they have a theory, and it conforms to a school of thought, and it used to be endorsed by someone who won a prize once, and all that apparently makes it more real than reality.

Yeah, the free market sun will come out tomorrow, but as the song says, tomorrow is always a day away.

[Rolamec]

I think as long as we got each other, we got the world spinnin' right in our hands, baby you and me, we gotta be, the luckiest dreamers who never quit dreamin'

[Novistrainia]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html?src=me&ref=business

But the modifiers here — federal and income — are important. Income taxes aren’t the only kind of federal taxes that people pay. There are also payroll taxes and investment taxes, among others. And, of course, people pay state and local taxes, too.

Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47.

So stop bitching about how 47% of American's don't pay taxes, perhaps income taxes, but there are other federal taxes, not to mention state and local taxes as well.

In addition, the argument that the wealthy are paying for the entire burden is ridiculous:

There is no question that the wealthy pay a higher overall tax rate than any other group. That is an American tradition. But there is also no question that their tax rates have fallen more than any other group’s over the last three decades. The only reason they are paying more taxes than in the past is that their pretax incomes have risen so rapidly — which hardly seems a great rationale for a further tax cut.

While they are paying for a good chunk of it, their income has grown the fastest, and their tax rates have dropped significantly.

I would prefer to "bitch" that we are taxed at all, I personally don't care what percentage don't pay income tax or any federal tax, though I would much prefer flat taxation if it must be, I care more that any hardworking person is forced to pay the government at all.
Now don't get me wrong, I do believe the government has a legitimate purpose, and that taxation may be a necessary evil to fund it, but I would prefer a system of voluntary taxation.

Forgive me if this sounds insane, but wouldn't it be indeed better that a person could choose how much money he or she gives to the government each year, why it could be from 0% to 99% if they so choose, if a person so believes the state to be operating to their satisfaction there is no reason he wouldn't pay for it if he is capable, the person would know that if he does not support the state, it will not be able to support him.
So I would suspect that he would come to a fair decision on what he was willing to pay, not much unlike a charity really, if he feels that he can't spare the money well then he can't end of story, no men in black suits coming to bar his house from him. But he would be under the realization that his lack of payment may hinder the governments services.
Regardless of your views this system works:
If man is selfish and self-serving, then he has to lose by not paying his taxes through all the services provided to him, since without funds they will be gone, and if he should want them back then he will learn the lesson of it and pay for his services the next year round.
If man is altruistic at heart, then he will obviously support the system with all or most of his income, thus no problems with funding should arise.
If man is neither and both, then the system will go as it does today, with those dutifully paying their taxes and those dodging them, the government will however remain at peril to it's people.

Alright I want you to ask 1,000 people if they would just give money away, to have a service they may not use or have immediate benefits for.
The reason we wouldn't do volunteer is do you know who would pay taxes, no one.

Precisely, man is self-serving, if you so believe your previous statement; then the government shall go bankrupt, and the private industry will replace it, as market forces must and will supply a demand. No harm, no foul. If you then will reply that the poor will have no services, then you do not believe that man is alone self-serving as you would tend for your weak, whether this care is administered by private charities or public officials is of little consequence.
Edit: Also private insurance companies make a killing on just that promise of provision do they not?

Then how in God's name do you explain why we need government in the first place? If man's self-service rules all then it should. Whatever. I believe what he was saying is subscription based services. If there is a demand for the services, people need them, which is the only reason the government should provide them in the first place... then people would be willing to subscribe to them.

I laugh at people who think the private industry would just take over all the rolls the government has. If that was true then it would have when man had begun developing society, what is shown though is man towards Socialism, I will not specify which type but they do.
As to your post about self-serving Mans need to be self serving has led them to create a society to protect them selves from those stronger who wanted to be self-serving and therefore also hurting themselves, the view point of, if I can't do it nobody can.
Not all of mankind is self serving but the number that isn't is very small and usually heavily disliked by society at large, which ends with them being assassinated or executed in some way.

Then those 1000 volunteers will willingly provide money to the government. As man tends towards socialism in your mind (and I gravely disagree) he must then be altruistic, or otherwise he would not care for the poor. Further if you don't believe that the majority are altruistic, then man does not tend towards socialism, but is being led their by the reigns of tyrants.

Either way you cannot legitimize taking someone's money because they wouldn't give it to you willingly, no more then can the beggar legitimize robbing another because he would not willingly part with his change.

If you disagree with socialism you must be paying your parents back for all of there services

[The Adrian Empire]

I laugh at people who think the private industry would just take over all the rolls the government has. If that was true then it would have when man had begun developing society, what is shown though is man towards Socialism, I will not specify which type but they do.
As to your post about self-serving Mans need to be self serving has led them to create a society to protect them selves from those stronger who wanted to be self-serving and therefore also hurting themselves, the view point of, if I can't do it nobody can.
Not all of mankind is self serving but the number that isn't is very small and usually heavily disliked by society at large, which ends with them being assassinated or executed in some way.

I find people who worship the free market fairy amusing as well. I especially enjoy their wide-eyed optimism that "The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow." Their entire world view is set in the future. They never tell us what does happen now or what has happened in the past. They only tell us what WILL happen on that great day when the world magically becomes what they wish it was. Thus, private industry WILL step in to replace government -- utterly disregarding the fact that private industry has NEVER replaced any part of government despite having numerous chances to do so in history.

But you see, they have a theory, and it conforms to a school of thought, and it used to be endorsed by someone who won a prize once, and all that apparently makes it more real than reality.

Yeah, the free market sun will come out tomorrow, but as the song says, tomorrow is always a day away.

Erhem, sauce? For I know that the basic laws of supply and demand violate your theory, you seem to believe their are no private schools, hospitals, security corporations, farms, factories or otherwise.
Perhaps it is just me, but did you not realize that you have switched the time-line of history, the private system once provided if not all of the services in society, a majority, then socialists nationalized said systems, you might argue for better or worse, but socialism has always prevented the formation of private industries to fill the gaps of public industry by means of regulation, and monopoly.

[Caninope]

I laugh at people who think the private industry would just take over all the rolls the government has. If that was true then it would have when man had begun developing society, what is shown though is man towards Socialism, I will not specify which type but they do.
As to your post about self-serving Mans need to be self serving has led them to create a society to protect them selves from those stronger who wanted to be self-serving and therefore also hurting themselves, the view point of, if I can't do it nobody can.
Not all of mankind is self serving but the number that isn't is very small and usually heavily disliked by society at large, which ends with them being assassinated or executed in some way.

I find people who worship the free market fairy amusing as well. I especially enjoy their wide-eyed optimism that "The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow." Their entire world view is set in the future. They never tell us what does happen now or what has happened in the past. They only tell us what WILL happen on that great day when the world magically becomes what they wish it was. Thus, private industry WILL step in to replace government -- utterly disregarding the fact that private industry has NEVER replaced any part of government despite having numerous chances to do so in history.

But you see, they have a theory, and it conforms to a school of thought, and it used to be endorsed by someone who won a prize once, and all that apparently makes it more real than reality.

Yeah, the free market sun will come out tomorrow, but as the song says, tomorrow is always a day away.

People who worship the Regulation Fairy are funny as well; regulation only leads to more big business.

[The Adrian Empire]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html?src=me&ref=business

But the modifiers here — federal and income — are important. Income taxes aren’t the only kind of federal taxes that people pay. There are also payroll taxes and investment taxes, among others. And, of course, people pay state and local taxes, too.

Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47.

So stop bitching about how 47% of American's don't pay taxes, perhaps income taxes, but there are other federal taxes, not to mention state and local taxes as well.

In addition, the argument that the wealthy are paying for the entire burden is ridiculous:

There is no question that the wealthy pay a higher overall tax rate than any other group. That is an American tradition. But there is also no question that their tax rates have fallen more than any other group’s over the last three decades. The only reason they are paying more taxes than in the past is that their pretax incomes have risen so rapidly — which hardly seems a great rationale for a further tax cut.

While they are paying for a good chunk of it, their income has grown the fastest, and their tax rates have dropped significantly.

I would prefer to "bitch" that we are taxed at all, I personally don't care what percentage don't pay income tax or any federal tax, though I would much prefer flat taxation if it must be, I care more that any hardworking person is forced to pay the government at all.
Now don't get me wrong, I do believe the government has a legitimate purpose, and that taxation may be a necessary evil to fund it, but I would prefer a system of voluntary taxation.

Forgive me if this sounds insane, but wouldn't it be indeed better that a person could choose how much money he or she gives to the government each year, why it could be from 0% to 99% if they so choose, if a person so believes the state to be operating to their satisfaction there is no reason he wouldn't pay for it if he is capable, the person would know that if he does not support the state, it will not be able to support him.
So I would suspect that he would come to a fair decision on what he was willing to pay, not much unlike a charity really, if he feels that he can't spare the money well then he can't end of story, no men in black suits coming to bar his house from him. But he would be under the realization that his lack of payment may hinder the governments services.
Regardless of your views this system works:
If man is selfish and self-serving, then he has to lose by not paying his taxes through all the services provided to him, since without funds they will be gone, and if he should want them back then he will learn the lesson of it and pay for his services the next year round.
If man is altruistic at heart, then he will obviously support the system with all or most of his income, thus no problems with funding should arise.
If man is neither and both, then the system will go as it does today, with those dutifully paying their taxes and those dodging them, the government will however remain at peril to it's people.

Alright I want you to ask 1,000 people if they would just give money away, to have a service they may not use or have immediate benefits for.
The reason we wouldn't do volunteer is do you know who would pay taxes, no one.

Precisely, man is self-serving, if you so believe your previous statement; then the government shall go bankrupt, and the private industry will replace it, as market forces must and will supply a demand. No harm, no foul. If you then will reply that the poor will have no services, then you do not believe that man is alone self-serving as you would tend for your weak, whether this care is administered by private charities or public officials is of little consequence.
Edit: Also private insurance companies make a killing on just that promise of provision do they not?

Then how in God's name do you explain why we need government in the first place? If man's self-service rules all then it should. Whatever. I believe what he was saying is subscription based services. If there is a demand for the services, people need them, which is the only reason the government should provide them in the first place... then people would be willing to subscribe to them.

I laugh at people who think the private industry would just take over all the rolls the government has. If that was true then it would have when man had begun developing society, what is shown though is man towards Socialism, I will not specify which type but they do.
As to your post about self-serving Mans need to be self serving has led them to create a society to protect them selves from those stronger who wanted to be self-serving and therefore also hurting themselves, the view point of, if I can't do it nobody can.
Not all of mankind is self serving but the number that isn't is very small and usually heavily disliked by society at large, which ends with them being assassinated or executed in some way.

Then those 1000 volunteers will willingly provide money to the government. As man tends towards socialism in your mind (and I gravely disagree) he must then be altruistic, or otherwise he would not care for the poor. Further if you don't believe that the majority are altruistic, then man does not tend towards socialism, but is being led their by the reigns of tyrants.

Either way you cannot legitimize taking someone's money because they wouldn't give it to you willingly, no more then can the beggar legitimize robbing another because he would not willingly part with his change.

If you disagree with socialism you must be paying your parents back for all of there services

Who said I disagree with socialism? I certainly do, if my parent's asked I would overtime pay them pack for the money they spent on me, I believe in charity, I believe man can be altruistic and self-serving, but given the choice I would pay taxes if it meant I could have services, I am simply advocating that taxes should not be taken by force, and that I be allowed to decide how much I pay to the government.

And please answer the question, rather then playing coy, I wasn't disagreeing with socialism, I was asking you to validate socialism by proving that man while rarely altruistic is for the theory that requires every person to be altruistic.

[Rolamec]

Wow, stiff debate. I bet the OP never meant it to be like that...Oh wait, I am the OP

[Caninope]

Wow, stiff debate. I bet the OP never meant it to be like that...Oh wait, I am the OP

Did you mean for it to be like that?

[Novistrainia]

I laugh at people who think the private industry would just take over all the rolls the government has. If that was true then it would have when man had begun developing society, what is shown though is man towards Socialism, I will not specify which type but they do.
As to your post about self-serving Mans need to be self serving has led them to create a society to protect them selves from those stronger who wanted to be self-serving and therefore also hurting themselves, the view point of, if I can't do it nobody can.
Not all of mankind is self serving but the number that isn't is very small and usually heavily disliked by society at large, which ends with them being assassinated or executed in some way.

I find people who worship the free market fairy amusing as well. I especially enjoy their wide-eyed optimism that "The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow." Their entire world view is set in the future. They never tell us what does happen now or what has happened in the past. They only tell us what WILL happen on that great day when the world magically becomes what they wish it was. Thus, private industry WILL step in to replace government -- utterly disregarding the fact that private industry has NEVER replaced any part of government despite having numerous chances to do so in history.

But you see, they have a theory, and it conforms to a school of thought, and it used to be endorsed by someone who won a prize once, and all that apparently makes it more real than reality.

Yeah, the free market sun will come out tomorrow, but as the song says, tomorrow is always a day away.

Erhem, sauce? For I know that the basic laws of supply and demand violate your theory, you seem to believe their are no private schools, hospitals, security corporations, farms, factories or otherwise.
Perhaps it is just me, but did you not realize that you have switched the time-line of history, the private system once provided if not all of the services in society, a majority, then socialists nationalized said systems, you might argue for better or worse, but socialism has always prevented the formation of private industries to fill the gaps of public industry by means of regulation, and monopoly.

Schools have tend to be unprofitable for the private industry, and do you even remember the feudal system

[Rolamec]

Wow, stiff debate. I bet the OP never meant it to be like that...Oh wait, I am the OP

Did you mean for it to be like that?

Of course, I mean who likes to talk about taxes lightly, but damn. The lengthy replies to another to another about the benefits/burden of taxes, just get -eh- tiring.

[The Adrian Empire]

I laugh at people who think the private industry would just take over all the rolls the government has. If that was true then it would have when man had begun developing society, what is shown though is man towards Socialism, I will not specify which type but they do.
As to your post about self-serving Mans need to be self serving has led them to create a society to protect them selves from those stronger who wanted to be self-serving and therefore also hurting themselves, the view point of, if I can't do it nobody can.
Not all of mankind is self serving but the number that isn't is very small and usually heavily disliked by society at large, which ends with them being assassinated or executed in some way.

I find people who worship the free market fairy amusing as well. I especially enjoy their wide-eyed optimism that "The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow." Their entire world view is set in the future. They never tell us what does happen now or what has happened in the past. They only tell us what WILL happen on that great day when the world magically becomes what they wish it was. Thus, private industry WILL step in to replace government -- utterly disregarding the fact that private industry has NEVER replaced any part of government despite having numerous chances to do so in history.

But you see, they have a theory, and it conforms to a school of thought, and it used to be endorsed by someone who won a prize once, and all that apparently makes it more real than reality.

Yeah, the free market sun will come out tomorrow, but as the song says, tomorrow is always a day away.

Erhem, sauce? For I know that the basic laws of supply and demand violate your theory, you seem to believe their are no private schools, hospitals, security corporations, farms, factories or otherwise.
Perhaps it is just me, but did you not realize that you have switched the time-line of history, the private system once provided if not all of the services in society, a majority, then socialists nationalized said systems, you might argue for better or worse, but socialism has always prevented the formation of private industries to fill the gaps of public industry by means of regulation, and monopoly.

Schools have tend to be unprofitable for the private industry, and do you even remember the feudal system

Yes, since the government provides schooling for free, it can be hard to operate a successful private school, yet successful private schools exist by taking niche markets, providing schools for the gifted, for the challenged and for the rich. This is the free market at work, the government holds a monopoly on affordable schooling.
But this is not what I am arguing, I am arguing against involuntary taxation, I have nothing against public schools, but if they were to all close down tomorrow I have no doubt that the private sector would fill that gap. As I do believe in public education I would pay for it, through my taxes as would any other that likewise believes in it.

As for the feudal system, are you arguing that the feudal system was socialist, for I beg to differ, there was slavery and tyranny, while the Nobles acting as the only legitimate source of government forced involuntary taxation among their serfs, they rarely provided more then basic protection in return, the nobles did not feed or educate their people, they expected them to operate on their own merits, they were less then slaves for the most part, and while the church would often help them, that simply proves that man privately was as charitable then as now. One could argue that feudalism is not far off from capitalism.
For freemen their trading of wares was purely capitalistic, and had guilds with whom they could associate themselves for better recognition. They paid lords for protection but were not beholden to them, free as they were to move from county to county if taxes were unfair. Education then was private, lords and freedmen paid for their children's education, it was not freely given by any government authority.

[Caninope]

I laugh at people who think the private industry would just take over all the rolls the government has. If that was true then it would have when man had begun developing society, what is shown though is man towards Socialism, I will not specify which type but they do.
As to your post about self-serving Mans need to be self serving has led them to create a society to protect them selves from those stronger who wanted to be self-serving and therefore also hurting themselves, the view point of, if I can't do it nobody can.
Not all of mankind is self serving but the number that isn't is very small and usually heavily disliked by society at large, which ends with them being assassinated or executed in some way.

I find people who worship the free market fairy amusing as well. I especially enjoy their wide-eyed optimism that "The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow." Their entire world view is set in the future. They never tell us what does happen now or what has happened in the past. They only tell us what WILL happen on that great day when the world magically becomes what they wish it was. Thus, private industry WILL step in to replace government -- utterly disregarding the fact that private industry has NEVER replaced any part of government despite having numerous chances to do so in history.

But you see, they have a theory, and it conforms to a school of thought, and it used to be endorsed by someone who won a prize once, and all that apparently makes it more real than reality.

Yeah, the free market sun will come out tomorrow, but as the song says, tomorrow is always a day away.

Erhem, sauce? For I know that the basic laws of supply and demand violate your theory, you seem to believe their are no private schools, hospitals, security corporations, farms, factories or otherwise.
Perhaps it is just me, but did you not realize that you have switched the time-line of history, the private system once provided if not all of the services in society, a majority, then socialists nationalized said systems, you might argue for better or worse, but socialism has always prevented the formation of private industries to fill the gaps of public industry by means of regulation, and monopoly.

Schools have tend to be unprofitable for the private industry, and do you even remember the feudal system

In case you don't know your history, it was capitalism that defeated feudalism because those artisans were able to consolidate their wealth into land once they had the chance, and from there it was all downhill for the aristocracy.

May I see your source for claiming that private schools operate at a loss?

[Caninope]

Wow, stiff debate. I bet the OP never meant it to be like that...Oh wait, I am the OP

Did you mean for it to be like that?

Of course, I mean who likes to talk about taxes lightly, but damn. The lengthy replies to another to another about the benefits/burden of taxes, just get -eh- tiring.

I guess you're not a tax lawyer.

[Novistrainia]

Okay we both agree man isn't self-serving in nature, though they can act it.
The problem comes in again, that man tends to not care what he can not see.

Do you care that most of Europes flight traffic is grounded, probably not unless you are a frequent flyer, do you care about the next countys roads, maybe not, maybe you don' t drive on them. If you saw a man hurt on the side of the road, you would help him, but if there was a man hurt in another part of the city, you probably wouldn't pay taxes so he could get an ambulance.
I would also point out you tend towards person led socialism, where the people choose to support these things, and not have the government make them do it. But that system would only work where the majority would support it, and if we were to look at say Somalia this tends to not be the case, even though I wished we were mature enough as a civilization to have person led socialism.

Finally to your school thing, if the government didn't provide schools, most of the poor would not get an education, large portions of the middle class would have inadequate education, the fact that there are schools for the very rich shows that there has to be public funded schools.

[Novistrainia]

I laugh at people who think the private industry would just take over all the rolls the government has. If that was true then it would have when man had begun developing society, what is shown though is man towards Socialism, I will not specify which type but they do.
As to your post about self-serving Mans need to be self serving has led them to create a society to protect them selves from those stronger who wanted to be self-serving and therefore also hurting themselves, the view point of, if I can't do it nobody can.
Not all of mankind is self serving but the number that isn't is very small and usually heavily disliked by society at large, which ends with them being assassinated or executed in some way.

I find people who worship the free market fairy amusing as well. I especially enjoy their wide-eyed optimism that "The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow." Their entire world view is set in the future. They never tell us what does happen now or what has happened in the past. They only tell us what WILL happen on that great day when the world magically becomes what they wish it was. Thus, private industry WILL step in to replace government -- utterly disregarding the fact that private industry has NEVER replaced any part of government despite having numerous chances to do so in history.

But you see, they have a theory, and it conforms to a school of thought, and it used to be endorsed by someone who won a prize once, and all that apparently makes it more real than reality.

Yeah, the free market sun will come out tomorrow, but as the song says, tomorrow is always a day away.

Erhem, sauce? For I know that the basic laws of supply and demand violate your theory, you seem to believe their are no private schools, hospitals, security corporations, farms, factories or otherwise.
Perhaps it is just me, but did you not realize that you have switched the time-line of history, the private system once provided if not all of the services in society, a majority, then socialists nationalized said systems, you might argue for better or worse, but socialism has always prevented the formation of private industries to fill the gaps of public industry by means of regulation, and monopoly.

Schools have tend to be unprofitable for the private industry, and do you even remember the feudal system

In case you don't know your history, it was capitalism that defeated feudalism because those artisans were able to consolidate their wealth into land once they had the chance, and from there it was all downhill for the aristocracy.

May I see your source for claiming that private schools operate at a loss?

I'm referring to how business would run at a loss if they were to run the school system how the government runs it, trust me business wouldn't run it at a loss, but I have a feeling most of the lower class, and lower middle class would be hard press to pay the tuition fees. Which for whatever reason rise even if there is a record attendance

[Caninope]

Finally to your school thing, if the government didn't provide schools, most of the poor would not get an education, large portions of the middle class would have inadequate education, the fact that there are schools for the very rich shows that there has to be public funded schools.

Not necessarily. There's home schooling, and I would advocate charter schools. In addition you have religious schools, which often have very good curricula.

[The Adrian Empire]

Okay we both agree man isn't self-serving in nature, though they can act it.
The problem comes in again, that man tends to not care what he can not see.

Do you care that most of Europes flight traffic is grounded, probably not unless you are a frequent flyer, do you care about the next countys roads, maybe not, maybe you don' t drive on them. If you saw a man hurt on the side of the road, you would help him, but if there was a man hurt in another part of the city, you probably wouldn't pay taxes so he could get an ambulance.
I would also point out you tend towards person led socialism, where the people choose to support these things, and not have the government make them do it. But that system would only work where the majority would support it, and if we were to look at say Somalia this tends to not be the case, even though I wished we were mature enough as a civilization to have person led socialism.

Finally to your school thing, if the government didn't provide schools, most of the poor would not get an education, large portions of the middle class would have inadequate education, the fact that there are schools for the very rich shows that there has to be public funded schools.

Well then man is self-serving in nature, don't you see the answer is none of the above in either case?

Why in either case must we be forced into taxation? You say we are unwilling? Then by whose authority do you claim we need to pay? By the government that those same self-serving men would not willingly support if given the opportunity, that is tyranny and nothing less.

[Rolamec]

Wow, stiff debate. I bet the OP never meant it to be like that...Oh wait, I am the OP

Did you mean for it to be like that?

Of course, I mean who likes to talk about taxes lightly, but damn. The lengthy replies to another to another about the benefits/burden of taxes, just get -eh- tiring.

I guess you're not a tax lawyer.

Haha, is it that obvious?

[The Adrian Empire]

I laugh at people who think the private industry would just take over all the rolls the government has. If that was true then it would have when man had begun developing society, what is shown though is man towards Socialism, I will not specify which type but they do.
As to your post about self-serving Mans need to be self serving has led them to create a society to protect them selves from those stronger who wanted to be self-serving and therefore also hurting themselves, the view point of, if I can't do it nobody can.
Not all of mankind is self serving but the number that isn't is very small and usually heavily disliked by society at large, which ends with them being assassinated or executed in some way.

I find people who worship the free market fairy amusing as well. I especially enjoy their wide-eyed optimism that "The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow." Their entire world view is set in the future. They never tell us what does happen now or what has happened in the past. They only tell us what WILL happen on that great day when the world magically becomes what they wish it was. Thus, private industry WILL step in to replace government -- utterly disregarding the fact that private industry has NEVER replaced any part of government despite having numerous chances to do so in history.

But you see, they have a theory, and it conforms to a school of thought, and it used to be endorsed by someone who won a prize once, and all that apparently makes it more real than reality.

Yeah, the free market sun will come out tomorrow, but as the song says, tomorrow is always a day away.

Erhem, sauce? For I know that the basic laws of supply and demand violate your theory, you seem to believe their are no private schools, hospitals, security corporations, farms, factories or otherwise.
Perhaps it is just me, but did you not realize that you have switched the time-line of history, the private system once provided if not all of the services in society, a majority, then socialists nationalized said systems, you might argue for better or worse, but socialism has always prevented the formation of private industries to fill the gaps of public industry by means of regulation, and monopoly.

Schools have tend to be unprofitable for the private industry, and do you even remember the feudal system

In case you don't know your history, it was capitalism that defeated feudalism because those artisans were able to consolidate their wealth into land once they had the chance, and from there it was all downhill for the aristocracy.

May I see your source for claiming that private schools operate at a loss?

I'm referring to how business would run at a loss if they were to run the school system how the government runs it, trust me business wouldn't run it at a loss, but I have a feeling most of the lower class, and lower middle class would be hard press to pay the tuition fees. Which for whatever reason rise even if there is a record attendance

Consider that there are more lower and lower middle class students, larger schools could potentially operate with very cheap tuitions, we must remember in this situation, that the taxes paid by the lower and lower middle class no longer exist, freeing up money that can be used for such schooling.

[Caninope]

I laugh at people who think the private industry would just take over all the rolls the government has. If that was true then it would have when man had begun developing society, what is shown though is man towards Socialism, I will not specify which type but they do.
As to your post about self-serving Mans need to be self serving has led them to create a society to protect them selves from those stronger who wanted to be self-serving and therefore also hurting themselves, the view point of, if I can't do it nobody can.
Not all of mankind is self serving but the number that isn't is very small and usually heavily disliked by society at large, which ends with them being assassinated or executed in some way.

I find people who worship the free market fairy amusing as well. I especially enjoy their wide-eyed optimism that "The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow." Their entire world view is set in the future. They never tell us what does happen now or what has happened in the past. They only tell us what WILL happen on that great day when the world magically becomes what they wish it was. Thus, private industry WILL step in to replace government -- utterly disregarding the fact that private industry has NEVER replaced any part of government despite having numerous chances to do so in history.

But you see, they have a theory, and it conforms to a school of thought, and it used to be endorsed by someone who won a prize once, and all that apparently makes it more real than reality.

Yeah, the free market sun will come out tomorrow, but as the song says, tomorrow is always a day away.

Erhem, sauce? For I know that the basic laws of supply and demand violate your theory, you seem to believe their are no private schools, hospitals, security corporations, farms, factories or otherwise.
Perhaps it is just me, but did you not realize that you have switched the time-line of history, the private system once provided if not all of the services in society, a majority, then socialists nationalized said systems, you might argue for better or worse, but socialism has always prevented the formation of private industries to fill the gaps of public industry by means of regulation, and monopoly.

Schools have tend to be unprofitable for the private industry, and do you even remember the feudal system

In case you don't know your history, it was capitalism that defeated feudalism because those artisans were able to consolidate their wealth into land once they had the chance, and from there it was all downhill for the aristocracy.

May I see your source for claiming that private schools operate at a loss?

I'm referring to how business would run at a loss if they were to run the school system how the government runs it, trust me business wouldn't run it at a loss, but I have a feeling most of the lower class, and lower middle class would be hard press to pay the tuition fees. Which for whatever reason rise even if there is a record attendance

Consider that there are more lower and lower middle class students, larger schools could potentially operate with very cheap tuitions, we must remember in this situation, that the taxes paid by the lower and lower middle class no longer exist, freeing up money that can be used for such schooling.

And the fact that they would have to compete: provide the best education for the lowest price.

[Caninope]

Wow, stiff debate. I bet the OP never meant it to be like that...Oh wait, I am the OP

Did you mean for it to be like that?

Of course, I mean who likes to talk about taxes lightly, but damn. The lengthy replies to another to another about the benefits/burden of taxes, just get -eh- tiring.

I guess you're not a tax lawyer.

Haha, is it that obvious?

It's also obvious that you aren't a CPA, or else you would like this kind of stuff.

[Novistrainia]

I laugh at people who think the private industry would just take over all the rolls the government has. If that was true then it would have when man had begun developing society, what is shown though is man towards Socialism, I will not specify which type but they do.
As to your post about self-serving Mans need to be self serving has led them to create a society to protect them selves from those stronger who wanted to be self-serving and therefore also hurting themselves, the view point of, if I can't do it nobody can.
Not all of mankind is self serving but the number that isn't is very small and usually heavily disliked by society at large, which ends with them being assassinated or executed in some way.

I find people who worship the free market fairy amusing as well. I especially enjoy their wide-eyed optimism that "The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow." Their entire world view is set in the future. They never tell us what does happen now or what has happened in the past. They only tell us what WILL happen on that great day when the world magically becomes what they wish it was. Thus, private industry WILL step in to replace government -- utterly disregarding the fact that private industry has NEVER replaced any part of government despite having numerous chances to do so in history.

But you see, they have a theory, and it conforms to a school of thought, and it used to be endorsed by someone who won a prize once, and all that apparently makes it more real than reality.

Yeah, the free market sun will come out tomorrow, but as the song says, tomorrow is always a day away.

Erhem, sauce? For I know that the basic laws of supply and demand violate your theory, you seem to believe their are no private schools, hospitals, security corporations, farms, factories or otherwise.
Perhaps it is just me, but did you not realize that you have switched the time-line of history, the private system once provided if not all of the services in society, a majority, then socialists nationalized said systems, you might argue for better or worse, but socialism has always prevented the formation of private industries to fill the gaps of public industry by means of regulation, and monopoly.

Schools have tend to be unprofitable for the private industry, and do you even remember the feudal system

In case you don't know your history, it was capitalism that defeated feudalism because those artisans were able to consolidate their wealth into land once they had the chance, and from there it was all downhill for the aristocracy.

May I see your source for claiming that private schools operate at a loss?

I'm referring to how business would run at a loss if they were to run the school system how the government runs it, trust me business wouldn't run it at a loss, but I have a feeling most of the lower class, and lower middle class would be hard press to pay the tuition fees. Which for whatever reason rise even if there is a record attendance

Consider that there are more lower and lower middle class students, larger schools could potentially operate with very cheap tuitions, we must remember in this situation, that the taxes paid by the lower and lower middle class no longer exist, freeing up money that can be used for such schooling.

Then explain why to me that tuition prices are increasing here at my college even with record enrollment, over $21,000 per year, when at one time a much smaller body paying less, even with inflation adjusted, I wouldn't say substantially less but less, and they were doing fine or at least I think. The school gets fully paid no matter what, either through loans or strait up payment.
It is the fundamental way schools are run, for secondary and primary schools, there would have to be no lunches, fully paid, reduced pay, free lunches, staff would have to be cut to small amounts meaning bigger classes, poorer learning. To even have a chance to keep cost down low enough for low income people to be able to pay for it. If it wasn't for the lottery in our state, taxes just for schools would rise.
As for the college level I blame the college administrations for the problem, always trying to one-up another college to get more students to have more money to build more things to get more students to have more money, all the while raising tuitions. They argue they have to build these things so that enrollment won't go down and they do not have to raise tuitions.

[Caninope]

I laugh at people who think the private industry would just take over all the rolls the government has. If that was true then it would have when man had begun developing society, what is shown though is man towards Socialism, I will not specify which type but they do.
As to your post about self-serving Mans need to be self serving has led them to create a society to protect them selves from those stronger who wanted to be self-serving and therefore also hurting themselves, the view point of, if I can't do it nobody can.
Not all of mankind is self serving but the number that isn't is very small and usually heavily disliked by society at large, which ends with them being assassinated or executed in some way.

I find people who worship the free market fairy amusing as well. I especially enjoy their wide-eyed optimism that "The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow." Their entire world view is set in the future. They never tell us what does happen now or what has happened in the past. They only tell us what WILL happen on that great day when the world magically becomes what they wish it was. Thus, private industry WILL step in to replace government -- utterly disregarding the fact that private industry has NEVER replaced any part of government despite having numerous chances to do so in history.

But you see, they have a theory, and it conforms to a school of thought, and it used to be endorsed by someone who won a prize once, and all that apparently makes it more real than reality.

Yeah, the free market sun will come out tomorrow, but as the song says, tomorrow is always a day away.

Erhem, sauce? For I know that the basic laws of supply and demand violate your theory, you seem to believe their are no private schools, hospitals, security corporations, farms, factories or otherwise.
Perhaps it is just me, but did you not realize that you have switched the time-line of history, the private system once provided if not all of the services in society, a majority, then socialists nationalized said systems, you might argue for better or worse, but socialism has always prevented the formation of private industries to fill the gaps of public industry by means of regulation, and monopoly.

Schools have tend to be unprofitable for the private industry, and do you even remember the feudal system

In case you don't know your history, it was capitalism that defeated feudalism because those artisans were able to consolidate their wealth into land once they had the chance, and from there it was all downhill for the aristocracy.

May I see your source for claiming that private schools operate at a loss?

I'm referring to how business would run at a loss if they were to run the school system how the government runs it, trust me business wouldn't run it at a loss, but I have a feeling most of the lower class, and lower middle class would be hard press to pay the tuition fees. Which for whatever reason rise even if there is a record attendance

Consider that there are more lower and lower middle class students, larger schools could potentially operate with very cheap tuitions, we must remember in this situation, that the taxes paid by the lower and lower middle class no longer exist, freeing up money that can be used for such schooling.

Then explain why to me that tuition prices are increasing here at my college even with record enrollment, over $21,000 per year, when at one time a much smaller body paying less, even with inflation adjusted, I wouldn't say substantially less but less, and they were doing fine or at least I think. The school gets fully paid no matter what, either through loans or strait up payment.
It is the fundamental way schools are run, for secondary and primary schools, there would have to be no lunches, fully paid, reduced pay, free lunches, staff would have to be cut to small amounts meaning bigger classes, poorer learning. To even have a chance to keep cost down low enough for low income people to be able to pay for it. If it wasn't for the lottery in our state, taxes just for schools would rise.
As for the college level I blame the college administrations for the problem, always trying to one-up another college to get more students to have more money to build more things to get more students to have more money, all the while raising tuitions. They argue they have to build these things so that enrollment won't go down and they do not have to raise tuitions.

How much has it increased? Are you taking into account the fact that colleges are generally receiving less in funding than before, and thus they may have to recover their losses?

[The Adrian Empire]

I laugh at people who think the private industry would just take over all the rolls the government has. If that was true then it would have when man had begun developing society, what is shown though is man towards Socialism, I will not specify which type but they do.
As to your post about self-serving Mans need to be self serving has led them to create a society to protect them selves from those stronger who wanted to be self-serving and therefore also hurting themselves, the view point of, if I can't do it nobody can.
Not all of mankind is self serving but the number that isn't is very small and usually heavily disliked by society at large, which ends with them being assassinated or executed in some way.

I find people who worship the free market fairy amusing as well. I especially enjoy their wide-eyed optimism that "The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow." Their entire world view is set in the future. They never tell us what does happen now or what has happened in the past. They only tell us what WILL happen on that great day when the world magically becomes what they wish it was. Thus, private industry WILL step in to replace government -- utterly disregarding the fact that private industry has NEVER replaced any part of government despite having numerous chances to do so in history.

But you see, they have a theory, and it conforms to a school of thought, and it used to be endorsed by someone who won a prize once, and all that apparently makes it more real than reality.

Yeah, the free market sun will come out tomorrow, but as the song says, tomorrow is always a day away.

Erhem, sauce? For I know that the basic laws of supply and demand violate your theory, you seem to believe their are no private schools, hospitals, security corporations, farms, factories or otherwise.
Perhaps it is just me, but did you not realize that you have switched the time-line of history, the private system once provided if not all of the services in society, a majority, then socialists nationalized said systems, you might argue for better or worse, but socialism has always prevented the formation of private industries to fill the gaps of public industry by means of regulation, and monopoly.

Schools have tend to be unprofitable for the private industry, and do you even remember the feudal system

In case you don't know your history, it was capitalism that defeated feudalism because those artisans were able to consolidate their wealth into land once they had the chance, and from there it was all downhill for the aristocracy.

May I see your source for claiming that private schools operate at a loss?

I'm referring to how business would run at a loss if they were to run the school system how the government runs it, trust me business wouldn't run it at a loss, but I have a feeling most of the lower class, and lower middle class would be hard press to pay the tuition fees. Which for whatever reason rise even if there is a record attendance

Consider that there are more lower and lower middle class students, larger schools could potentially operate with very cheap tuitions, we must remember in this situation, that the taxes paid by the lower and lower middle class no longer exist, freeing up money that can be used for such schooling.

Then explain why to me that tuition prices are increasing here at my college even with record enrollment, over $21,000 per year, when at one time a much smaller body paying less, even with inflation adjusted, I wouldn't say substantially less but less, and they were doing fine or at least I think. The school gets fully paid no matter what, either through loans or strait up payment.
It is the fundamental way schools are run, for secondary and primary schools, there would have to be no lunches, fully paid, reduced pay, free lunches, staff would have to be cut to small amounts meaning bigger classes, poorer learning. To even have a chance to keep cost down low enough for low income people to be able to pay for it. If it wasn't for the lottery in our state, taxes just for schools would rise.
As for the college level I blame the college administrations for the problem, always trying to one-up another college to get more students to have more money to build more things to get more students to have more money, all the while raising tuitions. They argue they have to build these things so that enrollment won't go down and they do not have to raise tuitions.

You have an idiot for an administrator, otherwise, your school is trying to provide better services for more people, sometimes that will require a rise in tuition, don't like it switch to a more affordable school