like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization

It's not a straw man at all. It's a logical conclusion to the question asked by the OP. She didn't provide any parameters.

 

Yeah, lecture us all about what horrible people we are while you speak ill of a little girl who recently died. When I grow up, can I be as classy as you?

 

So you use the most ridiculous parameters possible?

Are you protesting against 1% taxation?

 

'I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization.'

This must explain why the World Trade Center is still...You know.

 

I agree; it is a strawman, but it is only a strawman because claiming that "taxation=civility" is likewise a strawman.

You recognize the strawman in response, but not the instigating one? Why's that?

Those who object to taxation at the level at which it presently exists aren't objecting to civilization, for crissakes.

Perhaps; perhaps not. Either way, your personal anecdote about "knowing some people" is moot here. It is obvious that the vast majority in this forum who would be considered Conservatives aren't "those people".

The whole thread is an intentional mischaracterization of the ideology of small Government Conservatives, and it is has been defeated through logic.

 

You call my parameters ridiculous, and then ask me that?

Here ya go.

 

You are very mistaken, Daysleeper.

She is not a little girl.

She is a 27 year old drugged-out rock star!

It was her life style and her addiction to dangerous drugs that did her in.

Amy Weinhouse is the poster child for what is wrong with most of our self-indulgent, undisciplined young people today. Please note the egotistical sneer on her face in the recent photo of her I posted!

 

Holmes didn't say that taxation equals civilization. He said that he likes paying taxes, and that with them he buys civilization. Those were his two statements, the second one being the more relevant even if the first one is the more inflammatory.

That doesn't mean that all taxes are just, or that all taxes are put to the use of procuring civilized behavior from people. It simply states that his taxes are put to that use.

"All taxation is theft." You haven't read those words around here? "The government uses force to redistribute my property to the lower classes!" The bells, they must be ringing. "Taxation is not voluntary, therefore it is wrong."

You can argue that "those people" aren't conservatives, and you might very well be right. But try telling them that.

I say that the proper level of taxation is this: the smallest amount of income that can be taken from each individual without causing hardship while providing the necessary funds for democratically-determined government activity. That's really not very specific, I'll grant you, and it leaves plenty to argue about, but it does provide a formula that makes a closer approach to both justice and practicality than any other formula I've seen lately. There are only two popular formulas right now, anyway: tax the rich, and eat my shorts. I find those both to be somewhat incomplete.

(There's also Silicon's 'tax the poor' theory but while he seems like a smart guy I think that theory fails on all levels.)

What formula is everyone else using? How do you determine the proper level of taxation? Or, okay, if we're going to say that all taxation is improper -- perfectly valid philosophical argument -- then how do you determine the most proper, or least improper, level of taxation?

 

I don't really know very much about her. I kind of liked her music. But at twenty-seven, she's still a little girl to me.

And her "egotistical sneer," if that's what it is, pales in comparison to your own.

 

Well? Are you? A simple yes or no should suffice. I've said I'm against 100% taxation, which is what the OP was accused of encouraging. All you have to do is say you don't think 1% taxation is too high, and we can move on from the straw man.

 

I've never advocated anarchy, but I won't be goaded into answering stupid questions.

If you want to have a reasonable discussion, fine. But please stop with the silliness.

 

We used to be a constitutional republic. Today, given the amount we spend on entitlement programs, we more or less resemble a government-owned and government-directed plantation estate!

Uncle Sam's Plantation 1939-2011



Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty​ with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.

In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.

 

You're just afraid that if you say you're willing to accept even 1% taxation, the libertarians won't share their cookies.

We're talking politics. Silliness is all that will keep us sane. And honest, I think.

 

If he's buying civilization he's getting screwed with what passes for4 civilization now. I read this morning that three young men shot and killed a pregnant woman because she wouldn't hand over her purse. I sure wish that was shocking. On the other hand, if you're buying crooked politicians with your taxes, you're still getting screwed.

 

I'm not quite getting the connection.

I think this kind of thing happens less because we have a government -- I'm not entirely convinced but I think that's the case. And to have a government requires taxes. Right?

 

You are very correct, PatrickT.

Check this out.

Unfortunately, there is a cancer of unbridled self-indulgence pervading our society and our young adults today.

What is wrong with our young children these days!

Why would anyone even consider for a moment killing a young innocent mother who is four months pregnant?

 

sure but as soon as they can tax they pad the bill with everything they can think of and get away with.

The solution is itemized invoices NOT TAXES!

Everything should have a check box if WANTED except fire since that may "endanger" nearby buildings!

When you charge a tax for something I cannot or never will "BENEFIT" from you infringe on my rights. Simple as that.

 

I think the problem is that you benefit from more programs than you think you do. Not to mention that the biggest, costliest government program is the protection of wealth, which most Americans never benefit from, and in fact end up being harmed by it.

All a matter of perspective, I guess.

 

Well, that's fabulous, Daybreaker! But this isn't about what Holmes said; it's about what cassandra tried to use his quote to say herself.

And, if you'll recall, what she said was this:

Yep - in the context of the taxes he paid at the time, and in response to whatever discussion took place at the time. But I didn't see cassandrabandra anxious to get the context right, or even acknowledge the context. Instead, she chose to make a ridiculous reach of a point, at which point she became an extremely easy target of ridicule.

I cannot be held responsible for your miscarriage of meaning through extrapolating comments like "all taxation is theft", particularly when I haven't said that, and you haven't linked to anyone who did. What I can say is that I believe the progressive income tax system - and federal income taxes themselves - to be Fundamentally unConstitutional, but I live with them because it will take a massive movement (revolution, perhaps) to change it.

In that context, perhaps I can understand the comment that "all taxation is theft". That doesn't mean I would say that, and you're talking to me right now; no one else.

I believe a certain level of taxes are appropriate, but that doesn't stop me from objecting to several aspects of how our taxes are levied, among them:

1) Federal Income Taxes in general;

2) Progressive Taxation;

3) The various unConstitutional activities that our taxes are used for

I'm not here to defend every idea of a Conservative you have. Argue with what I've said, or cede my points as valid.

Your standard is based upon an impossible to determine metric. You may as well have suggested taxing gravity.

I believe that taxes should take place on the State level strictly. The FED should be collecting revenue from the States; that method allows the States to control the power of the FED, and it is how it should be. Notice, also, that a host of problems disappears when that policy is followed:

1) Earmarks disappear;
2) Arm-bending from the FED to pursue doctrines they prefer (ie: withholding highway funds if a given State doesn't take actions that the FED approves) disappears;
3) Unfair lobbying influence granted to Federal Representatives and Senators disappears.

This is how the Constitution was structured, prior to the formation of the Federal Income Tax via the (questionably legitimate) 16th Amendment. Revenue to the Federal Government was supposed to be channeled from the States, and I believe it is supposed to be that way still. It is my strong belief that the same elements that pushed for the FED also pushed for the Federal Income Tax (and put Woodrow Wilson in the Presidency).

We properly interpret the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses, for starters. We are allowing the Federal Government to infiltrate all aspects of our lives, and it is doing so entirely illegitimately.

Then, we allow each State to determine how to collect taxes, eliminate the IRS, and cut out the 16th and 17th Amendments entirely.

These two Amendments have done tremendous harm, and are substantially responsible for the mess we have.

 

Perhaps you consider that a "civilization" that you bought with your taxes. I don't.

I don't mind paying taxes to support a government but, of course, that's not what we do. Most of our taxes go for buying votes with entitlements or for fraud and programs we don't need and don't want. I would also like to see the burden, well, you know, shared a bit more. Fifty-percent paying doesn't seem quite right.

 

me? Not really. I have no quibs about paying for what I use in an invoice style arrangement, however these (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s sit in a domed building and make law actually "private corporate by-law" if we want to get persnikety about it, that violates my rights in favor of theirs, simultaneously opening the door for massive corruption as we have now. There is no place we can look in goverment and find full honest disclosure..

 

I guess it depends on what standards we want for the society we live in.

personally, a society where in order to receive assistance, the needy have to meet ill defined criteria, which may include their religious beliefs being an important criteria, some kind of assessment of their "morality", etc uneven distribution due to geopgraphical location and local services available doesn't really work for me.

I prefer a system that ensures that everyone is entitled to the same level of assistance, provided they meet a certain standard criteria.

but charity is't the only thing.

I know that a more educated population benefits all of us; I know that better public health spending leads to disease prevention and well as better treatment options across the board. I also know that, although I may not use country roads so much these days, spending on them improves overall road safety, and spending on various other infrastructure items overall, and the provision of land use regulations etc, improves the liveability of the region I come from.

I know that having legal aid for people on lower incomes improves access to the justice system, and makes it more equitable; I know that funding for various groups that provide information services improves our chances of making more informed decisions when faced with important life events.

I know that spending on youth services makes it unlikely that we will see anything like the riots in Britain this last week or so, and if we did, there would be adequate resources to deal with the situation.

And ... I guess importantly - I know that by paying taxes, my government deficit can be kept relatively low (with a planned return to surplus in 2013) which makes the society I live in more stable than many of those I see in other parts of the world at present.

You can whine about taxes as much as you like, but I really prefer to live in a better world, and my freedoms are no more restricted than yours.

 

You've literally made this up.

Great! Then form a charity that provides exactly what you want, and go find benefactors. If your idea is sound, it should not be a problem. If it isn't - if there isn't a need - then your idea will disappear, as bad ideas should.

If you fund it with Government, it will never go away.

You're intermingling disparate issues. Highways are the perview of Government; no one will disagree with you here. Public health spending is a general topic. To what spending do you refer?

Education should not be public.

Great! Form a company which provides this service. If you cannot find benefactors - or a market - then the need was imagined.

Wanna bet?

Also: do you want to bet that such things already exist in Britain?

And lower spending is a key component, and all the junk you want to spend other people's money on is not necessary. You simply do not believe that the innovative spirit of our population wouldn't solve problems on its own.

You've never given it a chance - but you certainly don't mind finding more and more problems to solve with other people's money. We've spent trillions on the junk you love, and our society is more focked up than ever, by any measure.

Your 'hopes and dreams' of utopia haven't panned out.

Non sequitur.

 

not really.

without the taxes that are used in governance as well as for the direct supply of goods and services it leaves "charities" to pick and choose wo they provide services to.

does this matter?

all of these are public goods.

don't have to.

cuts in resourcing these areas have been implicated in the riots.

doesn't look good the way it is going.

I live in a higher taxed society with better provision of public goods and services and a much lower deficit.

in my experience, higher taxes DO work.

 

Awesome. Donate more than you owe to the IRS. Civilization is the people, not the Government.