Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[ScottishFox]

21 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

We all bear some responsibility for what happens to the people on the ground.

 

Couldn't disagree more on this.  The government takes my money without my consent and uses it for things I condemn.

 

The fault of this belongs squarely on the shoulders of people pushing for these wars and profiting from them.

 

I'd rather see the money spent in America on healthcare, roads and other bits of our collapsing infrastructure.

There's a solid argument to be made that money spent on levies would have prevented the Katrina / New Orleans disaster entirely.

 

Too much of our foreign war involvement feels like D&D's Blood War. 

We'll just keep the devils and demons engaged in eternal war so that they never have time to turn their murderous impulses on us.

 

It's weird to me whenever I hear Democrats pushing for new wars or extending engagements.  This is not the Democratic party I grew up with.

 

If you push the "we can't leave our allies behind" argument to its logical conclusion then we are permanently committed to any war we dip our toe in. 

 

We have plenty of problems here to deal with and it'd be easier with a few trillion of those wasted war dollars.

[TrickstaPriest]

1 hour ago, ScottishFox said:

It's weird to me whenever I hear Democrats pushing for new wars or extending engagements.  This is not the Democratic party I grew up with.

 

If you push the "we can't leave our allies behind" argument to its logical conclusion then we are permanently committed to any war we dip our toe in. 

 

We have plenty of problems here to deal with and it'd be easier with a few trillion of those wasted war dollars.

 

Sure, but oversimplifying the problem is going to have serious consequences.  In this case, we more or less deliberately set them up to be quashed by their enemies, and will be creating more terrorist caliphates specifically targeting us in the future because of this.

 

Getting out is a priority, but we could have established this through one of our other partners... in advance.  I'd like to be corrected on this, because it really seems like we just tossed it into the air and shouted "catch!"

[Lord Liaden]

Roads and infrastructure look a lot less pressing to people whose homes are being bombed and families are being shot. And they bleed the same color we do.

 

Let me be very clear, many of these foreign wars exist because we made them. Not you and me personally, but the governments of our countries, which we in democracies are supposed to elect to represent our interests. We divided their lands with no consideration for who lived there. We stir up divisions, prop up dictators when it benefits us. If we don't like what our elected governments are doing we should organize and raise enough of a stink until they stop. It's happened before, but rarely, because the common human condition for all of us is complacency. If we don't have to see it, don't personally deal with the consequences, it's easy to ignore.

 

In the modern media age the only way not to see what's happening in a place like Syria today is to look away. And that's a deliberate choice. It will have consequences for us, one way or another.

 

EDIT: I still respect your right to disagree and express it, ScottishFox. You couldn't be more wrong, but I respect it.

[TrickstaPriest]

2 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

The fault of this belongs squarely on the shoulders of people pushing for these wars and profiting from them.

 

This though I wholly agree with >_>

[ScottishFox]

50 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

I still respect your right to disagree and express it, ScottishFox. You couldn't be more wrong, but I respect it.

 

Sir, you are grossly underestimating my ability to be wrong. 

[TrickstaPriest]

41 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

Sir, you are grossly underestimating my ability to be wrong. 

 

Ditto.

 

It's why I try and keep my most stringent opinions towards scientific knowledge...

[megaplayboy]

Trump is sending troops to Saudi Arabia at the exact same time some are praising him for "ending forever wars and getting our troops out of the ME".  I think that might be ascribing too much coherence to his approach to policy generally.

[Lord Liaden]

I believe I do see a coherence to Trump's foreign policy: Going where his money is.

[Doc Democracy]

15 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

Couldn't disagree more on this.  The government takes my money without my consent and uses it for things I condemn.

This is an interesting take.  "Takes my money without my consent". 

 

Do you think taxation is wrong?  It is a valid position but not one consistent with nation states, borders and government as we know and understand them.  I would be interested (if you can be bothered 🙂 ) in hearing how you would "do civilisation".

 

I fear my vision tends too strongly

towards nanny state paternalism....

 

Doc

[TrickstaPriest]

8 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

Do you think taxation is wrong?  It is a valid position but not one consistent with nation states, borders and government as we know and understand them.  I would be interested (if you can be bothered 🙂 ) in hearing how you would "do civilisation".

 

 

I mean, taxes are a primary source of power for a government.  The more taxes they collect, the more power they have over their people.  (Those taxes are then used to pay military forces... though similarly, you can use one to get the other...)

 

The concern a lot of people have is whether you can control a government handling that kind of money... without them walking off with it.

 

On the other hand, automation is going to basically remove the need to pay people to do work, which is a whole other power system that's going to collapse the power dynamics of a democratic country so...

[Doc Democracy]

21 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

The more taxes they collect, the more power they have over their people

 

I subscribe to the idea that the power of a government is demonstrated by its ability to raise taxes, either by force or by consent, from citizens. 

 

I don't think it follows that the more tax collected, the greater it's power.  Conversely, I think higher tax burdens need the government to use greater force or acquire extended consent.  Otherwise it is likely to go badly for the country.

[DShomshak]

Well, there are countries where nobody has to pay taxes. It may be the law, but the government has no power to collect. Try Afghanistan or the Central African Republic.

 

At least, nobody pays taxes to the state. They pay a great deal to illegitimate collectors, from the clerk who demands a bribe to do his job to the bandit warlord who demands tribute not to kill your entire village. There are systems of extraction that deliver far less in return than taxation to a democratic state. Once again, see Why Nations Fail.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Pattern Ghost]

9 minutes ago, DShomshak said:

from the clerk who demands a bribe to do his job to the bandit warlord who demands tribute not to kill your entire village

 

Sounds like the Seattle City Council to me.

 

*By the way, I'm all paid up. Please keep your minions out of Snohomish, thanks.

 

 

[Zeropoint]

"I like to pay taxes. With them, I buy civilization." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

 

While I don't approve of everything that my tax money goes for--like putting kids in cages and bombing brown people's hospitals--I have no problem at all with the idea of taxes or with paying them.

 

What I do have a problem with is all the entities in our country that aren't shouldering their share of the tax burdern, like big business (Amazon's a trillion dollar company that pays no taxes?) and rich people. I also think churches, of any and all religions, should be taxed the same as any other non-profit organization, but I realize that's not going to be a popular position in the US. 

[IndianaJoe3]

1 hour ago, Zeropoint said:

I also think churches, of any and all religions, should be taxed the same as any other non-profit organization, but I realize that's not going to be a popular position in the US. 

 

Aren't a large number of charitable non-profit organizations also tax-exempt?

[wcw43921]

5 hours ago, Zeropoint said:

"I like to pay taxes. With them, I buy civilization." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

 

While I don't approve of everything that my tax money goes for--like putting kids in cages and bombing brown people's hospitals--I have no problem at all with the idea of taxes or with paying them.

 

What I do have a problem with is all the entities in our country that aren't shouldering their share of the tax burdern, like big business (Amazon's a trillion dollar company that pays no taxes?) and rich people. I also think churches, of any and all religions, should be taxed the same as any other non-profit organization, but I realize that's not going to be a popular position in the US. 

 

"People want just taxes more than they want lower taxes. They want to know that every man is paying his proportionate share according to his wealth."--Will Rogers

[Iuz the Evil]

3 hours ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

 

Aren't a large number of charitable non-profit organizations also tax-exempt?

501c3 nonprofit organizations refers to their being exempt from taxes. It's s category that has been stretched to the point of ridiculousness. Kaiser is in part a nonprofit, for crying out loud.

 

Anything that can make a case as to being a benefit to society can probably get the status. Just have to go through the process. Most folks think 501c3 status = charity, but it's just a legal exemption for a corporation from tax payment. 

[ScottishFox]

On 10/12/2019 at 4:07 AM, Doc Democracy said:

Do you think taxation is wrong?  It is a valid position but not one consistent with nation states, borders and government as we know and understand them.  I would be interested (if you can be bothered 🙂 ) in hearing how you would "do civilisation".

 

I fear my vision tends too strongly

towards nanny state paternalism....

 

I believe involuntary taxation is wrong.

 

I would love to get a list from my overlapping layers of government letting me select which causes I will chip in for and which ones I won't.  Causes that don't get enough buy-in from the cash crop civilians get dropped or do poorly with limited funds.

 

I had to pay hundreds of dollars per month for public schools (property tax) while paying for daycare for my kid who wasn't old enough for school yet.  I would have happily opted out of paying for public school until my child was in the public school system. 

Additionally, I'd stop paying for it when my kid gets out of public school.

 

Government is in the unique position of not having to keep its customers any happier than where violent revolution occurs.  Real businesses have to keep their customers happy enough to voluntarily keep paying.

Just imagine how our society might change if we paid for the services we wanted and opted out of the ones we didn't want?

Imagine if each option came with an income-adjusted price so everyone had skin in the game for deciding what they would or would not pay for.

 

Currently my family would have to sell it's primary residence to cover our share of the national debt (Roughly $198,000 for a family of 3).  I bet I would have opted out of huge sections of that debt given the chance over the years.

With the debt doubling every 8-10 years my child will be on the hook for over $150k by the time they're old enough to start their first job.

 

My vision tends too strongly towards minarchist libertarian.  More freedom, less security.

 

 

[Doc Democracy]

3 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

I believe involuntary taxation is wrong.

 

Again, you are not actually arguing taxation, you are arguing spending.  Involuntary taxation does not exist in a liberal democracy.  You work to change the politics of your country or you go somewhere the taxation policies better suit you. 

 

I think everyone would appreciate more ability to direct the detail of where their taxes are spent.  It would cost money to do that (an overhead on taxes) and I think would probably lead to higher taxes (if you need $100 million to run your education system but taxing at 25% only raises $80 million based on people's choices, then taxes would need to rise to about 30% to raise the necessary $100 million).

 

Obviously everything else gains as well but you are heading to a very odd capitalist socialism.

[ScottishFox]

53 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

Again, you are not actually arguing taxation, you are arguing spending.  Involuntary taxation does not exist in a liberal democracy.  You work to change the politics of your country or you go somewhere the taxation policies better suit you. 

 

I think everyone would appreciate more ability to direct the detail of where their taxes are spent.  It would cost money to do that (an overhead on taxes) and I think would probably lead to higher taxes (if you need $100 million to run your education system but taxing at 25% only raises $80 million based on people's choices, then taxes would need to rise to about 30% to raise the necessary $100 million).

 

We'll disagree on what involuntary means then. 

If I choose to not pay my taxes then I'll get fined, my wages will be garnished, men with guns will come to my house to take me to jail if I persist in not paying my "voluntary" taxes and if I object to that I risk being killed.

If by voluntary you mean I can leave the country - that's a pretty hard stretch on voluntary. 

What I most certainly cannot do is politely decline to pay the taxes.

 

Regarding your second point - Yes, there'd be some extra overhead, but I have to notice that in your example there was no mention of the option of the government to spend less money by way of improved efficiency or reduced services.

 

I think a voluntary tax program would quickly align government spending with what tax payers actually care about instead of the current grotesquely expensive and corruption riddled morass we currently enjoy.

For example - I think most Americans would happily sign up for social security and medicare and pay in their 15% per paycheck for decades.  Similarly I think most places would quite happily chip in for police, fire fighters and ambulance crews.

[csyphrett]

39 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

 

We'll disagree on what involuntary means then. 

If I choose to not pay my taxes then I'll get fined, my wages will be garnished, men with guns will come to my house to take me to jail if I persist in not paying my "voluntary" taxes and if I object to that I risk being killed.

If by voluntary you mean I can leave the country - that's a pretty hard stretch on voluntary. 

What I most certainly cannot do is politely decline to pay the taxes.

 

Regarding your second point - Yes, there'd be some extra overhead, but I have to notice that in your example there was no mention of the option of the government to spend less money by way of improved efficiency or reduced services.

 

I think a voluntary tax program would quickly align government spending with what tax payers actually care about instead of the current grotesquely expensive and corruption riddled morass we currently enjoy.

For example - I think most Americans would happily sign up for social security and medicare and pay in their 15% per paycheck for decades.  Similarly I think most places would quite happily chip in for police, fire fighters and ambulance crews.

I disagree on all of this. When Social Security started, no one wanted to pay into it. Businesses didn't want to support it. Basically FDR had to ram it through and make people like it. Same with medicare.

CES 

[ScottishFox]

15 minutes ago, csyphrett said:

I disagree on all of this. When Social Security started, no one wanted to pay into it. Businesses didn't want to support it. Basically FDR had to ram it through and make people like it. Same with medicare.

CES 

 

That was a very different time and governments hadn't exactly earned the trust of the people.  Tens of millions of people had been killed by their own governments and it was only natural for people to be suspicious of a government program that wanted a non-trivial cut of their paychecks for benefits that wouldn't materialize for decades. 

 

Also, the average life span back in those days was in the 50s.  People weren't living to an average of 80 years of age so a program designed to start paying benefits right as you were about to fall over dead probably wasn't especially attractive.

 

Slamming laws into place directly against the will of the public doesn't exactly scream liberal democracy.

[Zeropoint]

8 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

I had to pay hundreds of dollars per month for public schools (property tax) while paying for daycare for my kid who wasn't old enough for school yet.  I would have happily opted out of paying for public school until my child was in the public school system. 

Additionally, I'd stop paying for it when my kid gets out of public school.

 

This is a good example of why a voluntary taxation scheme or opt-out system is a very bad idea. All of us, including you, ScottishFox, benefit every day from the advantages of an educated populace. That you would only be interested in paying for the education system when it directly benefits you and yours is disgustingly selfish. Would you also argue that if you don't drive, none of your taxes should go to roads?

[Pariah]

3 minutes ago, Zeropoint said:

This is a good example of why a voluntary taxation scheme or opt-out system is a very bad idea. All of us, including you, ScottishFox, benefit every day from the advantages of an educated populace. That you would only be interested in paying for the education system when it directly benefits you and yours is disgustingly selfish.

 

Seconded.

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

We'll disagree on what involuntary means then. 

If I choose to not pay my taxes then I'll get fined, my wages will be garnished, men with guns will come to my house to take me to jail if I persist in not paying my "voluntary" taxes and if I object to that I risk being killed.

If by voluntary you mean I can leave the country - that's a pretty hard stretch on voluntary. 

What I most certainly cannot do is politely decline to pay the taxes.

 

I can live in an apartment if I pay rent to the landlord.  I can leave and not pay rent.  If I refuse to pay, and refuse to leave, men with guns will come and take me to jail if I persist in not paying my "voluntary" rent.  I cannot politely decline to pay the rent and continue to reside in that home.

 

Why is choosing to leave the apartment or pay the rent required to remain in that apartment different from choosing to leave the country (and/or renounce citizenship) or remain in the country (and/or retain citizenship) and pay the taxes required to remain in the country?

 

3 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

 

For example - I think most Americans would happily sign up for social security and medicare and pay in their 15% per paycheck for decades.  Similarly I think most places would quite happily chip in for police, fire fighters and ambulance crews.

 

 

But you yourself said that you would not chip in for the public schools that educate the children who will grow up to be police, fire fighters and ambulance crews, did you not?  You were only willing to pay while your child was in the school system.  Would you be prepared to pony up the full cost of the education system, divided by the number of students in attendance in those years?  Would you expect to select which school subjects you would, and would not, pay for?   Note that those schools also provide the basic education needed to train the many professionals who provide medical services paid for by medicare.

 

Where were all those people who would be lining up to chip in to medicare when people were railing against Obamacare?  I know far too many people who think they can do a better job saving for their retirement than government can, and would opt out of the enforced savings plan of social security.  But they would not expect to be left to starve in the streets when they failed to save, became ill (and had no medical coverage as they did not pay for it), lost their jobs (no benefits as they did not pay in) and ran out of money.

 

Many public services are funded from tax dollars precisely because the average citizen will not choose to chip in with everyone else to make those services available.