Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Taxing for your own good... enough already!
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
news:c46gv31020loh4qosih6gpofp3bouvkn1l@4ax,com ...
>
> Of course it does, and that's why they do it. My point was that they
> shouldn't. Taxes are supposed to fund the government,
Add: The legitimate functions of government,
> not be used to
> control the herd. We are not supposed to be a fucking herd.
>
> Punitive taxation is wrong.
Not in Europe. ;~)
"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
news:c46gv31020loh4qosih6gpofp3bouvkn1l@4ax,com ...
>
> Of course it does, and that's why they do it. My point was that they
> shouldn't. Taxes are supposed to fund the government,
Add: The legitimate functions of government,
> not be used to
> control the herd. We are not supposed to be a fucking herd.
>
> Punitive taxation is wrong.
Not in Europe. ;~)
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
news:c46gv31020loh4qosih6gpofp3bouvkn1l@4ax,com ...
> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
>>news:5qkfv3tfj2popk0q4otenfjcna60qi53nk@4ax,com ...
>>> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <65ppbgF2h6g9oU1@mid.individual,net >,
>>>> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
>>>>> news:Misc-C3050C.09122105042008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>>>>> > In article <65pfjbF2gioedU1@mid.individual,net >,
>>>>> > "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> >> We don't tax them enough.
>>>>
>>>>> > This statement is wrong, no matter how it's applied.
>>>>
>>>>> Snappy comeback, but not exactly a cogent argument ...
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> One big negative externality: respiratory diseases in urban areas.
>>>>> Think
>>>>> COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, asthma. Even if only one in ten
>>>>> of
>>>>> these are caused by internal combustion pollution, that is still a
>>>>> massive
>>>>> health care bill which is currently not footed by the industry or by
>>>>> the
>>>>> drivers.
>>>>
>>>>Speaking of cogent arguments -- yeah, so...?
>>>>
>>>>Taxation is not the solution to any of the problems you list.
>>>
>>> Taxation should not be punitive, neither should it be used for "crowd
>>> control".
>>
>>So what is the solution? The environmental impact of hydrocarbon
>>pollution
>>is diffuse -- if you get emphysema, can you point to any one driver and
>>prove that his exhaust fumes were responsible for your lungs crapping out
>>on
>>you?
>
> No. You got emphysema. Bad luck, sucks to be you, at least it's not
> cancer. It's no one's fault, Litigea.
Bad luck or not, the costs are still there, and they are not borne by the
parties responsible. We pay for other refuse made by us to be removed, from
Twinkie wrappers in the trash-can to the thoroughly digested remains of the
chilli dinner in the bowl. Why should this be an exception?
>
>> Or should we simply talk at people and go on our wheezing way when
>>they tell us to sod off? Like it or not, price increases do change
>>behaviour, and if your annual petrol cost jumps from $2,000 to $3,000 you
>>will think very carefully about buying a more efficient car next time
>>round,
>>even if you would rather buy that SRT-8 ...
>
> Of course it does, and that's why they do it. My point was that they
> shouldn't. Taxes are supposed to fund the government, not be used to
> control the herd. We are not supposed to be a fucking herd.
Nah, only the bull gets to fuck.
(and possibly the farmer)
>
> Punitive taxation is wrong.
Mickey, there is no such thing as a tax which is not punitive,
redistributive and a tool of social engineering. Any tax you can think of
will have at least one group who will benefit especially or one group who
will bear an unequal burden. Any use of tax revenue you can think of will
fund social engineering, because there is no aspect of government activity
which does not, in some form, have precisely such an effect, even if
unintended. Even the most "uninvolving" taxation will in some way either
protect a status quo or be used to strengthen the state -- both purposes in
themselves social engineering and possibly punitive.
In this particular context, you as a driver can of course argue that an
increased petrol tax is punitive .... but you as an emphysema sufferer would
see it as directly beneficial. So who's right?
"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
news:c46gv31020loh4qosih6gpofp3bouvkn1l@4ax,com ...
> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
>>news:5qkfv3tfj2popk0q4otenfjcna60qi53nk@4ax,com ...
>>> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <65ppbgF2h6g9oU1@mid.individual,net >,
>>>> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
>>>>> news:Misc-C3050C.09122105042008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>>>>> > In article <65pfjbF2gioedU1@mid.individual,net >,
>>>>> > "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> >> We don't tax them enough.
>>>>
>>>>> > This statement is wrong, no matter how it's applied.
>>>>
>>>>> Snappy comeback, but not exactly a cogent argument ...
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> One big negative externality: respiratory diseases in urban areas.
>>>>> Think
>>>>> COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, asthma. Even if only one in ten
>>>>> of
>>>>> these are caused by internal combustion pollution, that is still a
>>>>> massive
>>>>> health care bill which is currently not footed by the industry or by
>>>>> the
>>>>> drivers.
>>>>
>>>>Speaking of cogent arguments -- yeah, so...?
>>>>
>>>>Taxation is not the solution to any of the problems you list.
>>>
>>> Taxation should not be punitive, neither should it be used for "crowd
>>> control".
>>
>>So what is the solution? The environmental impact of hydrocarbon
>>pollution
>>is diffuse -- if you get emphysema, can you point to any one driver and
>>prove that his exhaust fumes were responsible for your lungs crapping out
>>on
>>you?
>
> No. You got emphysema. Bad luck, sucks to be you, at least it's not
> cancer. It's no one's fault, Litigea.
Bad luck or not, the costs are still there, and they are not borne by the
parties responsible. We pay for other refuse made by us to be removed, from
Twinkie wrappers in the trash-can to the thoroughly digested remains of the
chilli dinner in the bowl. Why should this be an exception?
>
>> Or should we simply talk at people and go on our wheezing way when
>>they tell us to sod off? Like it or not, price increases do change
>>behaviour, and if your annual petrol cost jumps from $2,000 to $3,000 you
>>will think very carefully about buying a more efficient car next time
>>round,
>>even if you would rather buy that SRT-8 ...
>
> Of course it does, and that's why they do it. My point was that they
> shouldn't. Taxes are supposed to fund the government, not be used to
> control the herd. We are not supposed to be a fucking herd.
Nah, only the bull gets to fuck.
(and possibly the farmer)
>
> Punitive taxation is wrong.
Mickey, there is no such thing as a tax which is not punitive,
redistributive and a tool of social engineering. Any tax you can think of
will have at least one group who will benefit especially or one group who
will bear an unequal burden. Any use of tax revenue you can think of will
fund social engineering, because there is no aspect of government activity
which does not, in some form, have precisely such an effect, even if
unintended. Even the most "uninvolving" taxation will in some way either
protect a status quo or be used to strengthen the state -- both purposes in
themselves social engineering and possibly punitive.
In this particular context, you as a driver can of course argue that an
increased petrol tax is punitive .... but you as an emphysema sufferer would
see it as directly beneficial. So who's right?
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 09:37:00 +0100, Alex W. wrote:
> "Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
> news:c46gv31020loh4qosih6gpofp3bouvkn1l@4ax,com ...
>> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
>>>news:5qkfv3tfj2popk0q4otenfjcna60qi53nk@4ax,com ...
>>>> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <65ppbgF2h6g9oU1@mid.individual,net >,
>>>>> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Misc-C3050C.09122105042008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>>>>>> > In article <65pfjbF2gioedU1@mid.individual,net >,
>>>>>> > "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> >> We don't tax them enough.
>>>>>
>>>>>> > This statement is wrong, no matter how it's applied.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Snappy comeback, but not exactly a cogent argument ...
>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One big negative externality: respiratory diseases in urban areas.
>>>>>> Think
>>>>>> COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, asthma. Even if only one in ten
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> these are caused by internal combustion pollution, that is still a
>>>>>> massive
>>>>>> health care bill which is currently not footed by the industry or by
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>>Speaking of cogent arguments -- yeah, so...?
>>>>>
>>>>>Taxation is not the solution to any of the problems you list.
>>>>
>>>> Taxation should not be punitive, neither should it be used for "crowd
>>>> control".
>>>
>>>So what is the solution? The environmental impact of hydrocarbon
>>>pollution
>>>is diffuse -- if you get emphysema, can you point to any one driver and
>>>prove that his exhaust fumes were responsible for your lungs crapping out
>>>on
>>>you?
>>
>> No. You got emphysema. Bad luck, sucks to be you, at least it's not
>> cancer. It's no one's fault, Litigea.
>
> Bad luck or not, the costs are still there, and they are not borne by the
> parties responsible. We pay for other refuse made by us to be removed, from
> Twinkie wrappers in the trash-can to the thoroughly digested remains of the
> chilli dinner in the bowl. Why should this be an exception?
>
>>
>>> Or should we simply talk at people and go on our wheezing way when
>>>they tell us to sod off? Like it or not, price increases do change
>>>behaviour, and if your annual petrol cost jumps from $2,000 to $3,000 you
>>>will think very carefully about buying a more efficient car next time
>>>round,
>>>even if you would rather buy that SRT-8 ...
>>
>> Of course it does, and that's why they do it. My point was that they
>> shouldn't. Taxes are supposed to fund the government, not be used to
>> control the herd. We are not supposed to be a fucking herd.
>
> Nah, only the bull gets to fuck.
> (and possibly the farmer)
>
>>
>> Punitive taxation is wrong.
>
> Mickey, there is no such thing as a tax which is not punitive,
> redistributive and a tool of social engineering. Any tax you can think of
> will have at least one group who will benefit especially or one group who
> will bear an unequal burden. Any use of tax revenue you can think of will
> fund social engineering, because there is no aspect of government activity
> which does not, in some form, have precisely such an effect, even if
> unintended. Even the most "uninvolving" taxation will in some way either
> protect a status quo or be used to strengthen the state -- both purposes in
> themselves social engineering and possibly punitive.
>
> In this particular context, you as a driver can of course argue that an
> increased petrol tax is punitive .... but you as an emphysema sufferer would
> see it as directly beneficial. So who's right?
USA federal taxes should be levied and collected simply to fund the
responsibilities of the federal government as enumerated in the
Constitution. Not a penny more. The US Constitution has no "social
engineering clause". The US Constitution has no "market adjustments"
clause. The US Constitution has no "do it for the children clause".
--
Demonick
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 09:37:00 +0100, Alex W. wrote:
> "Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
> news:c46gv31020loh4qosih6gpofp3bouvkn1l@4ax,com ...
>> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
>>>news:5qkfv3tfj2popk0q4otenfjcna60qi53nk@4ax,com ...
>>>> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <65ppbgF2h6g9oU1@mid.individual,net >,
>>>>> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Misc-C3050C.09122105042008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>>>>>> > In article <65pfjbF2gioedU1@mid.individual,net >,
>>>>>> > "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> >> We don't tax them enough.
>>>>>
>>>>>> > This statement is wrong, no matter how it's applied.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Snappy comeback, but not exactly a cogent argument ...
>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One big negative externality: respiratory diseases in urban areas.
>>>>>> Think
>>>>>> COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, asthma. Even if only one in ten
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> these are caused by internal combustion pollution, that is still a
>>>>>> massive
>>>>>> health care bill which is currently not footed by the industry or by
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>>Speaking of cogent arguments -- yeah, so...?
>>>>>
>>>>>Taxation is not the solution to any of the problems you list.
>>>>
>>>> Taxation should not be punitive, neither should it be used for "crowd
>>>> control".
>>>
>>>So what is the solution? The environmental impact of hydrocarbon
>>>pollution
>>>is diffuse -- if you get emphysema, can you point to any one driver and
>>>prove that his exhaust fumes were responsible for your lungs crapping out
>>>on
>>>you?
>>
>> No. You got emphysema. Bad luck, sucks to be you, at least it's not
>> cancer. It's no one's fault, Litigea.
>
> Bad luck or not, the costs are still there, and they are not borne by the
> parties responsible. We pay for other refuse made by us to be removed, from
> Twinkie wrappers in the trash-can to the thoroughly digested remains of the
> chilli dinner in the bowl. Why should this be an exception?
>
>>
>>> Or should we simply talk at people and go on our wheezing way when
>>>they tell us to sod off? Like it or not, price increases do change
>>>behaviour, and if your annual petrol cost jumps from $2,000 to $3,000 you
>>>will think very carefully about buying a more efficient car next time
>>>round,
>>>even if you would rather buy that SRT-8 ...
>>
>> Of course it does, and that's why they do it. My point was that they
>> shouldn't. Taxes are supposed to fund the government, not be used to
>> control the herd. We are not supposed to be a fucking herd.
>
> Nah, only the bull gets to fuck.
> (and possibly the farmer)
>
>>
>> Punitive taxation is wrong.
>
> Mickey, there is no such thing as a tax which is not punitive,
> redistributive and a tool of social engineering. Any tax you can think of
> will have at least one group who will benefit especially or one group who
> will bear an unequal burden. Any use of tax revenue you can think of will
> fund social engineering, because there is no aspect of government activity
> which does not, in some form, have precisely such an effect, even if
> unintended. Even the most "uninvolving" taxation will in some way either
> protect a status quo or be used to strengthen the state -- both purposes in
> themselves social engineering and possibly punitive.
>
> In this particular context, you as a driver can of course argue that an
> increased petrol tax is punitive .... but you as an emphysema sufferer would
> see it as directly beneficial. So who's right?
USA federal taxes should be levied and collected simply to fund the
responsibilities of the federal government as enumerated in the
Constitution. Not a penny more. The US Constitution has no "social
engineering clause". The US Constitution has no "market adjustments"
clause. The US Constitution has no "do it for the children clause".
--
Demonick
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
In article <jgh8gmsz3hkv.1wpvkzfg6izdw.dlg@40tude,net >,
Demonick <demonick@eartleek,net > wrote:
> The US Constitution has no "do it for the children clause".
I always felt it needed one, though -- don't you? ;)
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
In article <jgh8gmsz3hkv.1wpvkzfg6izdw.dlg@40tude,net >,
Demonick <demonick@eartleek,net > wrote:
> The US Constitution has no "do it for the children clause".
I always felt it needed one, though -- don't you? ;)
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in
message
news:Misc-3DE9C4.08512006042008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
> In article <jgh8gmsz3hkv.1wpvkzfg6izdw.dlg@40tude,net >,
> Demonick <demonick@eartleek,net > wrote:
>
>> The US Constitution has no "do it for the children
>> clause".
>
> I always felt it needed one, though -- don't you? ;)
NAMBLA would certainly approve ...
:-)
"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in
message
news:Misc-3DE9C4.08512006042008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
> In article <jgh8gmsz3hkv.1wpvkzfg6izdw.dlg@40tude,net >,
> Demonick <demonick@eartleek,net > wrote:
>
>> The US Constitution has no "do it for the children
>> clause".
>
> I always felt it needed one, though -- don't you? ;)
NAMBLA would certainly approve ...
:-)
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
"Demonick" <demonick@eartleek,net > wrote in message
news:jgh8gmsz3hkv.1wpvkzfg6izdw.dlg@40tude,net ...
> USA federal taxes should be levied and collected simply to
> fund the
> responsibilities of the federal government as enumerated
> in the
> Constitution. Not a penny more. The US Constitution has
> no "social
> engineering clause". The US Constitution has no "market
> adjustments"
> clause. The US Constitution has no "do it for the
> children clause".
Well, there is the reference to "general welfare" in the
preamble, and in Section 8 Congress is explicitly empowered
to collect taxes to provide for said general welfare, so the
point is debatable.
A stronger case could be made for individual states to
impose their own taxes, particularly in those states which
do have an explicit public health mandate (New York and
Florida spring to mind).
"Demonick" <demonick@eartleek,net > wrote in message
news:jgh8gmsz3hkv.1wpvkzfg6izdw.dlg@40tude,net ...
> USA federal taxes should be levied and collected simply to
> fund the
> responsibilities of the federal government as enumerated
> in the
> Constitution. Not a penny more. The US Constitution has
> no "social
> engineering clause". The US Constitution has no "market
> adjustments"
> clause. The US Constitution has no "do it for the
> children clause".
Well, there is the reference to "general welfare" in the
preamble, and in Section 8 Congress is explicitly empowered
to collect taxes to provide for said general welfare, so the
point is debatable.
A stronger case could be made for individual states to
impose their own taxes, particularly in those states which
do have an explicit public health mandate (New York and
Florida spring to mind).
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
Her's a novel way to save some tax money...
Empty our prisons and give each prisoner $50 and a bus ticket to mexico
city.
CigarSki - Hey, if illegal imigration is a boost to mexico's economy, why
not try it ourselves.
Her's a novel way to save some tax money...
Empty our prisons and give each prisoner $50 and a bus ticket to mexico
city.
CigarSki - Hey, if illegal imigration is a boost to mexico's economy, why
not try it ourselves.
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
I highly recommend this book:
http :// tinyurl,com /2fdfb9
I highly recommend this book:
http :// tinyurl,com /2fdfb9
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
I highly recommend this book:
http :// tinyurl,com /2fdfb9
I highly recommend this book:
http :// tinyurl,com /2fdfb9
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
"The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or
drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does his is certainly a damn
fool, and his might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a
free man any more than a dog." - C. K. Chesterton
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the food of its victims must
be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under
omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his
cupidity may at some time be satiates; but those who torment us for our own good
will torment us without end, for they do so with approval of their own
conscience." - C. S. Lewis
"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." --Bertrand de
Jouvenel
"The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or
drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does his is certainly a damn
fool, and his might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a
free man any more than a dog." - C. K. Chesterton
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the food of its victims must
be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under
omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his
cupidity may at some time be satiates; but those who torment us for our own good
will torment us without end, for they do so with approval of their own
conscience." - C. S. Lewis
"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." --Bertrand de
Jouvenel
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
"Demonick" <demonick@eartleek,net > wrote
> USA federal taxes should be levied and collected simply to fund the
> responsibilities of the federal government as enumerated in the
> Constitution. Not a penny more. The US Constitution has no "social
> engineering clause". The US Constitution has no "market adjustments"
> clause. The US Constitution has no "do it for the children clause".
Nick:
You are absolutely correct. But as long as we are forced to elect human
beings with agendas, they will continue to attempt to engineer society using
the law as a cudgel.
Now if you all would just trash the constitution and select me as Permanent
Grand Infallible Poobah of the Observable Universe, I would see that this
situation is changed in short order.
Michael
New Orleans, Louisiana USA
fermanis@REMOVEsprynet,com
==================================
CRESCENT CITY CRAWFISH CIGAR CRAWL
Weekend of April 19, 2008
http :// www .nolaherf,com
==================================
"Demonick" <demonick@eartleek,net > wrote
> USA federal taxes should be levied and collected simply to fund the
> responsibilities of the federal government as enumerated in the
> Constitution. Not a penny more. The US Constitution has no "social
> engineering clause". The US Constitution has no "market adjustments"
> clause. The US Constitution has no "do it for the children clause".
Nick:
You are absolutely correct. But as long as we are forced to elect human
beings with agendas, they will continue to attempt to engineer society using
the law as a cudgel.
Now if you all would just trash the constitution and select me as Permanent
Grand Infallible Poobah of the Observable Universe, I would see that this
situation is changed in short order.
Michael
New Orleans, Louisiana USA
fermanis@REMOVEsprynet,com
==================================
CRESCENT CITY CRAWFISH CIGAR CRAWL
Weekend of April 19, 2008
http :// www .nolaherf,com
==================================
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
In the beginning there was equality under the law. That's what the founders
envisioned and that's what we all strove to bring into fruition. Then there
came the progressive idea of equality of opportunity. Now the government
would try and give an equal opportunity to each and every person. Bad
parents? No problem, Uncle Sugar will do XYZ to make up for it. Got no arms?
Uncle Sugar will give you a mechanical pair or, better, force schools and
work places to adapt to you.
Finally, there came equality of condition. This is the true socialist
mantra. We will artificially redistribute wealth through taxation and
entitlement programs until everyone has the same. That's the new meaning of
equality.
I say Bullshit! We are not all born equally able or equipped. Each must have
equal treatment under the law, no more and no less. If you aren't bright and
have no special talent that others wish to buy, then that's just too bad.
Deal with it. Short people have to come to grips with the fact that they are
not tall. Tall folks are never going to be able to buy off the rack. Ugly
people need to come to grips with the fact that are never going to be a
super model. That's life. To try and fix it with taxation is a crime and an
abuse of power, not to mention useless.
--
R J Talley
Teacher/James Madison Fellow
"What? Me Worry? Alfred E Newman
In the beginning there was equality under the law. That's what the founders
envisioned and that's what we all strove to bring into fruition. Then there
came the progressive idea of equality of opportunity. Now the government
would try and give an equal opportunity to each and every person. Bad
parents? No problem, Uncle Sugar will do XYZ to make up for it. Got no arms?
Uncle Sugar will give you a mechanical pair or, better, force schools and
work places to adapt to you.
Finally, there came equality of condition. This is the true socialist
mantra. We will artificially redistribute wealth through taxation and
entitlement programs until everyone has the same. That's the new meaning of
equality.
I say Bullshit! We are not all born equally able or equipped. Each must have
equal treatment under the law, no more and no less. If you aren't bright and
have no special talent that others wish to buy, then that's just too bad.
Deal with it. Short people have to come to grips with the fact that they are
not tall. Tall folks are never going to be able to buy off the rack. Ugly
people need to come to grips with the fact that are never going to be a
super model. That's life. To try and fix it with taxation is a crime and an
abuse of power, not to mention useless.
--
R J Talley
Teacher/James Madison Fellow
"What? Me Worry? Alfred E Newman
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
>news:c46gv31020loh4qosih6gpofp3bouvkn1l@4ax,com ...
>> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
>>>news:5qkfv3tfj2popk0q4otenfjcna60qi53nk@4ax,com ...
>>>> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <65ppbgF2h6g9oU1@mid.individual,net >,
>>>>> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Misc-C3050C.09122105042008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>>>>>> > In article <65pfjbF2gioedU1@mid.individual,net >,
>>>>>> > "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> >> We don't tax them enough.
>>>>>
>>>>>> > This statement is wrong, no matter how it's applied.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Snappy comeback, but not exactly a cogent argument ...
>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One big negative externality: respiratory diseases in urban areas.
>>>>>> Think
>>>>>> COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, asthma. Even if only one in ten
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> these are caused by internal combustion pollution, that is still a
>>>>>> massive
>>>>>> health care bill which is currently not footed by the industry or by
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>>Speaking of cogent arguments -- yeah, so...?
>>>>>
>>>>>Taxation is not the solution to any of the problems you list.
>>>>
>>>> Taxation should not be punitive, neither should it be used for "crowd
>>>> control".
>>>
>>>So what is the solution? The environmental impact of hydrocarbon
>>>pollution
>>>is diffuse -- if you get emphysema, can you point to any one driver and
>>>prove that his exhaust fumes were responsible for your lungs crapping out
>>>on
>>>you?
>>
>> No. You got emphysema. Bad luck, sucks to be you, at least it's not
>> cancer. It's no one's fault, Litigea.
>
>Bad luck or not, the costs are still there, and they are not borne by the
>parties responsible. We pay for other refuse made by us to be removed, from
>Twinkie wrappers in the trash-can to the thoroughly digested remains of the
>chilli dinner in the bowl. Why should this be an exception?
Because it is not the result of negligence, and exposure to certain
hazards is the price for being part of our happy little society.
If "clean" air is so important to you, pull stakes and seek out a
society not using fossil fuels. I believe you might find some in
Africa. Of course, they have their drawbacks, too.
You pays your dollar, you takes your chances.
>
>
>>
>>> Or should we simply talk at people and go on our wheezing way when
>>>they tell us to sod off? Like it or not, price increases do change
>>>behaviour, and if your annual petrol cost jumps from $2,000 to $3,000 you
>>>will think very carefully about buying a more efficient car next time
>>>round,
>>>even if you would rather buy that SRT-8 ...
>>
>> Of course it does, and that's why they do it. My point was that they
>> shouldn't. Taxes are supposed to fund the government, not be used to
>> control the herd. We are not supposed to be a fucking herd.
>
>Nah, only the bull gets to fuck.
>(and possibly the farmer)
>
>
>>
>> Punitive taxation is wrong.
>
>Mickey, there is no such thing as a tax which is not punitive,
>redistributive and a tool of social engineering. Any tax you can think of
>will have at least one group who will benefit especially or one group who
>will bear an unequal burden. Any use of tax revenue you can think of will
>fund social engineering, because there is no aspect of government activity
>which does not, in some form, have precisely such an effect, even if
>unintended. Even the most "uninvolving" taxation will in some way either
>protect a status quo or be used to strengthen the state -- both purposes in
>themselves social engineering and possibly punitive.
But that sort of manipulation through taxation is more acceptable when
it is applied to businesses, as opposed to citizens. It is good and
proper for some control to be applied to business activity.
>
>In this particular context, you as a driver can of course argue that an
>increased petrol tax is punitive .... but you as an emphysema sufferer would
>see it as directly beneficial. So who's right?
>
Me as a driver.
If the government insists I drive less, pass a law and take the heat
that comes from it. But they won't do that, because we still have
rails they can be ridden on. No, they take the indirect route of
taxing it, which only winds up working against the poorest most
powerless members of our society.
"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
>news:c46gv31020loh4qosih6gpofp3bouvkn1l@4ax,com ...
>> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
>>>news:5qkfv3tfj2popk0q4otenfjcna60qi53nk@4ax,com ...
>>>> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <65ppbgF2h6g9oU1@mid.individual,net >,
>>>>> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Misc-C3050C.09122105042008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>>>>>> > In article <65pfjbF2gioedU1@mid.individual,net >,
>>>>>> > "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> >> We don't tax them enough.
>>>>>
>>>>>> > This statement is wrong, no matter how it's applied.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Snappy comeback, but not exactly a cogent argument ...
>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One big negative externality: respiratory diseases in urban areas.
>>>>>> Think
>>>>>> COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, asthma. Even if only one in ten
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> these are caused by internal combustion pollution, that is still a
>>>>>> massive
>>>>>> health care bill which is currently not footed by the industry or by
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>>Speaking of cogent arguments -- yeah, so...?
>>>>>
>>>>>Taxation is not the solution to any of the problems you list.
>>>>
>>>> Taxation should not be punitive, neither should it be used for "crowd
>>>> control".
>>>
>>>So what is the solution? The environmental impact of hydrocarbon
>>>pollution
>>>is diffuse -- if you get emphysema, can you point to any one driver and
>>>prove that his exhaust fumes were responsible for your lungs crapping out
>>>on
>>>you?
>>
>> No. You got emphysema. Bad luck, sucks to be you, at least it's not
>> cancer. It's no one's fault, Litigea.
>
>Bad luck or not, the costs are still there, and they are not borne by the
>parties responsible. We pay for other refuse made by us to be removed, from
>Twinkie wrappers in the trash-can to the thoroughly digested remains of the
>chilli dinner in the bowl. Why should this be an exception?
Because it is not the result of negligence, and exposure to certain
hazards is the price for being part of our happy little society.
If "clean" air is so important to you, pull stakes and seek out a
society not using fossil fuels. I believe you might find some in
Africa. Of course, they have their drawbacks, too.
You pays your dollar, you takes your chances.
>
>
>>
>>> Or should we simply talk at people and go on our wheezing way when
>>>they tell us to sod off? Like it or not, price increases do change
>>>behaviour, and if your annual petrol cost jumps from $2,000 to $3,000 you
>>>will think very carefully about buying a more efficient car next time
>>>round,
>>>even if you would rather buy that SRT-8 ...
>>
>> Of course it does, and that's why they do it. My point was that they
>> shouldn't. Taxes are supposed to fund the government, not be used to
>> control the herd. We are not supposed to be a fucking herd.
>
>Nah, only the bull gets to fuck.
>(and possibly the farmer)
>
>
>>
>> Punitive taxation is wrong.
>
>Mickey, there is no such thing as a tax which is not punitive,
>redistributive and a tool of social engineering. Any tax you can think of
>will have at least one group who will benefit especially or one group who
>will bear an unequal burden. Any use of tax revenue you can think of will
>fund social engineering, because there is no aspect of government activity
>which does not, in some form, have precisely such an effect, even if
>unintended. Even the most "uninvolving" taxation will in some way either
>protect a status quo or be used to strengthen the state -- both purposes in
>themselves social engineering and possibly punitive.
But that sort of manipulation through taxation is more acceptable when
it is applied to businesses, as opposed to citizens. It is good and
proper for some control to be applied to business activity.
>
>In this particular context, you as a driver can of course argue that an
>increased petrol tax is punitive .... but you as an emphysema sufferer would
>see it as directly beneficial. So who's right?
>
Me as a driver.
If the government insists I drive less, pass a law and take the heat
that comes from it. But they won't do that, because we still have
rails they can be ridden on. No, they take the indirect route of
taxing it, which only winds up working against the poorest most
powerless members of our society.
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
news:tq7iv3toedn8q33el81odi0meelmeir95u@4ax,com ...
> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Bad luck or not, the costs are still there, and they are
>>not borne by the
>>parties responsible. We pay for other refuse made by us
>>to be removed, from
>>Twinkie wrappers in the trash-can to the thoroughly
>>digested remains of the
>>chilli dinner in the bowl. Why should this be an
>>exception?
>
> Because it is not the result of negligence, and exposure
> to certain
> hazards is the price for being part of our happy little
> society.
I live in central London, a densely urban area used by
something like 4 million cars a day. If I had a penny for
every car I've seen with faulty exhaust and every driver
with excessively stupid driving habits (like the popular
little game of "let's see how often I can rev the engine
befre the lights turn green"), my house would have sunk
beneath the earth from the weight of all that small change.
Some pollution is inevitable and must be acceptable in
exchange for all the benefits of living in an urbanised and
(post-)industrial society, but there is certainly plenty of
negligence and carelessness that can and should be dealt
with.
>
> If "clean" air is so important to you, pull stakes and
> seek out a
> society not using fossil fuels. I believe you might find
> some in
> Africa. Of course, they have their drawbacks, too.
Like living in a small country run by a corrupt clique under
a monarch with iffy hereditary problems and lousy transport?
Oh wait, I already live there....
:-)
>
> You pays your dollar, you takes your chances.
Make it a Swiss Franc or Euro -- that way we get more
chances for the buck.
:-)
>>Mickey, there is no such thing as a tax which is not
>>punitive,
>>redistributive and a tool of social engineering. Any tax
>>you can think of
>>will have at least one group who will benefit especially
>>or one group who
>>will bear an unequal burden. Any use of tax revenue you
>>can think of will
>>fund social engineering, because there is no aspect of
>>government activity
>>which does not, in some form, have precisely such an
>>effect, even if
>>unintended. Even the most "uninvolving" taxation will in
>>some way either
>>protect a status quo or be used to strengthen the state --
>>both purposes in
>>themselves social engineering and possibly punitive.
>
> But that sort of manipulation through taxation is more
> acceptable when
> it is applied to businesses, as opposed to citizens. It is
> good and
> proper for some control to be applied to business
> activity.
Why should it be more acceptable to socially engineer
corporate behaviour? Is that not a copout favoured by
politicians wary of upsetting their chances of re-election?
In the end, is not the customer king? By concentrating on
business, do we not excuse and even condone individual
irresponsibility?
>
>>
>>In this particular context, you as a driver can of course
>>argue that an
>>increased petrol tax is punitive .... but you as an
>>emphysema sufferer would
>>see it as directly beneficial. So who's right?
>>
>
> Me as a driver.
Why?
Because you currently drive but don't have emphysema?
>
> If the government insists I drive less, pass a law and
> take the heat
> that comes from it. But they won't do that, because we
> still have
> rails they can be ridden on. No, they take the indirect
> route of
> taxing it, which only winds up working against the poorest
> most
> powerless members of our society.
You mean they currently take the route you earlier declared
to be more acceptable....
"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
news:tq7iv3toedn8q33el81odi0meelmeir95u@4ax,com ...
> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Bad luck or not, the costs are still there, and they are
>>not borne by the
>>parties responsible. We pay for other refuse made by us
>>to be removed, from
>>Twinkie wrappers in the trash-can to the thoroughly
>>digested remains of the
>>chilli dinner in the bowl. Why should this be an
>>exception?
>
> Because it is not the result of negligence, and exposure
> to certain
> hazards is the price for being part of our happy little
> society.
I live in central London, a densely urban area used by
something like 4 million cars a day. If I had a penny for
every car I've seen with faulty exhaust and every driver
with excessively stupid driving habits (like the popular
little game of "let's see how often I can rev the engine
befre the lights turn green"), my house would have sunk
beneath the earth from the weight of all that small change.
Some pollution is inevitable and must be acceptable in
exchange for all the benefits of living in an urbanised and
(post-)industrial society, but there is certainly plenty of
negligence and carelessness that can and should be dealt
with.
>
> If "clean" air is so important to you, pull stakes and
> seek out a
> society not using fossil fuels. I believe you might find
> some in
> Africa. Of course, they have their drawbacks, too.
Like living in a small country run by a corrupt clique under
a monarch with iffy hereditary problems and lousy transport?
Oh wait, I already live there....
:-)
>
> You pays your dollar, you takes your chances.
Make it a Swiss Franc or Euro -- that way we get more
chances for the buck.
:-)
>>Mickey, there is no such thing as a tax which is not
>>punitive,
>>redistributive and a tool of social engineering. Any tax
>>you can think of
>>will have at least one group who will benefit especially
>>or one group who
>>will bear an unequal burden. Any use of tax revenue you
>>can think of will
>>fund social engineering, because there is no aspect of
>>government activity
>>which does not, in some form, have precisely such an
>>effect, even if
>>unintended. Even the most "uninvolving" taxation will in
>>some way either
>>protect a status quo or be used to strengthen the state --
>>both purposes in
>>themselves social engineering and possibly punitive.
>
> But that sort of manipulation through taxation is more
> acceptable when
> it is applied to businesses, as opposed to citizens. It is
> good and
> proper for some control to be applied to business
> activity.
Why should it be more acceptable to socially engineer
corporate behaviour? Is that not a copout favoured by
politicians wary of upsetting their chances of re-election?
In the end, is not the customer king? By concentrating on
business, do we not excuse and even condone individual
irresponsibility?
>
>>
>>In this particular context, you as a driver can of course
>>argue that an
>>increased petrol tax is punitive .... but you as an
>>emphysema sufferer would
>>see it as directly beneficial. So who's right?
>>
>
> Me as a driver.
Why?
Because you currently drive but don't have emphysema?
>
> If the government insists I drive less, pass a law and
> take the heat
> that comes from it. But they won't do that, because we
> still have
> rails they can be ridden on. No, they take the indirect
> route of
> taxing it, which only winds up working against the poorest
> most
> powerless members of our society.
You mean they currently take the route you earlier declared
to be more acceptable....
Re: Taxing for your own good... enough already!
In article <65t4qfF2hjbgqU1@mid.individual,net >,
"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I live in central London, a densely urban area used by
> something like 4 million cars a day.
8 million men, women & children manage to cram 4M cars a day onto your
roads?! Day-em! Even California isn't that bad...
> If I had a penny for
> every car I've seen with faulty exhaust and every driver
> with excessively stupid driving habits (like the popular
> little game of "let's see how often I can rev the engine
> befre the lights turn green"), my house would have sunk
> beneath the earth from the weight of all that small change.
Surely we're not talking about anything near $1 per day, ~$350/year.
How long have you you lived in this junk-heap of yours...?! ;)
> Some pollution is inevitable and must be acceptable in
> exchange for all the benefits of living in an urbanised and
> (post-)industrial society, but there is certainly plenty of
> negligence and carelessness that can and should be dealt
> with.
Oh, agreed.
Although it'd be interesting to do the math for how many brush fires
we'd have to light to get the same amount of energy, and just how clean
we're being, currently, in comparison.
This by no means indicates that I think we should let-up on polluters --
only that I think scale is an interesting thing.
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
In article <65t4qfF2hjbgqU1@mid.individual,net >,
"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I live in central London, a densely urban area used by
> something like 4 million cars a day.
8 million men, women & children manage to cram 4M cars a day onto your
roads?! Day-em! Even California isn't that bad...
> If I had a penny for
> every car I've seen with faulty exhaust and every driver
> with excessively stupid driving habits (like the popular
> little game of "let's see how often I can rev the engine
> befre the lights turn green"), my house would have sunk
> beneath the earth from the weight of all that small change.
Surely we're not talking about anything near $1 per day, ~$350/year.
How long have you you lived in this junk-heap of yours...?! ;)
> Some pollution is inevitable and must be acceptable in
> exchange for all the benefits of living in an urbanised and
> (post-)industrial society, but there is certainly plenty of
> negligence and carelessness that can and should be dealt
> with.
Oh, agreed.
Although it'd be interesting to do the math for how many brush fires
we'd have to light to get the same amount of energy, and just how clean
we're being, currently, in comparison.
This by no means indicates that I think we should let-up on polluters --
only that I think scale is an interesting thing.
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
