UK warns: Climate change could cause a worldwide recession

farfromglorified wrote:

If it was being asked, I'd have absolutely no problem with it. But you cannot threaten violence against someone and then say "it's being asked".

A beggar asks you for your money. A robber threatens you for it. Do you see the difference?

In some states don't you vote on taxes? Isn't that asking? Besides, lol, yes, let's ASK everyone what taxes they want to pay then see what kinda roads, schools, hospitals we get then :eek: . Rich people have this 'choice' and they usually do their business in a foreign country to avoid paying taxes and contributing to society. Just and ignorant and selfish point of view if you ask me.

Heineken Helen wrote:

In some states don't you vote on taxes? Isn't that asking?

That would be asking, up until the point where an individual who said no would be forced to pay that tax anyway.

Besides, lol, yes, let's ASK everyone what taxes they want to pay then see what kinda roads, schools, hospitals we get then :eek: .

We'd get exactly what we wanted to pay for. If we want to pay for nothing, we'd get nothing. If we want to pay for all of it, we'd get all of it.

Why don't you apply this to everything? I mean, you have the choice not to buy food for your family or diapers or housing or most products you buy in a day. Does the fact that you actually have a choice mean you won't buy them? Of course not. You buy the things that have value to you. Are you suggesting that "roads" and "schools" and "hospitals" have no value and therefore would never be paid for?

Rich people have this 'choice' and they usually do their business in a foreign country to avoid paying taxes and contributing to society. Just and ignorant and selfish point of view if you ask me.

Really? That's odd since the "roads", "schools", and "hospitals" you speak of were largely paid for by the rich. The top one percent of earners in the United States country pay over a third of the taxes. The top five percent pay over half. The top 25 percent pay over 80 percent. Meanwhile, 44 million Americans with jobs now pay no income tax at all.

farfromglorified wrote:

That would be asking, up until the point where an individual who said no would be forced to pay that tax anyway.

:rolleyes: but I bet if that 'individual' gets sick, he/she will still want to visit the hospital. I bet he/she would still want his kids to go to school... maybe on the same roads paid for by everybody else?

farfromglorified wrote:

Why don't you apply this to everything? I mean, you have the choice not to buy food for your family or diapers or housing or most products you buy in a day. Does the fact that you actually have a choice mean you won't buy them? Of course not. You buy the things that have value to you. Are you suggesting that "roads" and "schools" and "hospitals" have no value and therefore would never be paid for?

Well they wouldn't be paid for if nobody PAID for them, would they?

farfromglorified wrote:

Really? That's odd since the "roads", "schools", and "hospitals" you speak of were largely paid for by the rich. The top one percent of earners in the United States country pay over a third of the taxes. The top five percent pay over half. The top 25 percent pay over 80 percent. Meanwhile, 44 million Americans with jobs now pay no income tax at all.

So you just want the rich to pay for everything? Anyway, that may be applicable in YOUR country but you're forgetting I'm from a country where its a bit more evenly spread. Take U2 for example, they're taking their money to Holland, while still living and basing themselves here, to save some money in taxes. There are several loopholes in this country for the rich to manage to avoid paying.

Heineken Helen wrote:

:rolleyes: but I bet if that 'individual' gets sick, he/she will still want to visit the hospital. I bet he/she would still want his kids to go to school... maybe on the same roads paid for by everybody else?

Just because someone "wants" something doesn't mean they deserve something, foreign as that concept may be around here.

Well they wouldn't be paid for if nobody PAID for them, would they?

Of course not.

So you just want the rich to pay for everything? Anyway, that may be applicable in YOUR country but you're forgetting I'm from a country where its a bit more evenly spread. Take U2 for example, they're taking their money to Holland, while still living and basing themselves here, to save some money in taxes. There are several loopholes in this country for the rich to manage to avoid paying.

I want the rich to pay for whatever they want to pay for. I could care less if it's roads or schools or Fabrege Eggs. And I want the poor to do the same. I don't want anyone being forced to work for or pay for something they don't want. I do not believe in slavery.

farfromglorified wrote:

So would you suggest that if both traffic laws and tax laws were repealed, the percentage of violators would be the same? Do you think, for instance, that most people would stop paying their taxes and start driving against oncoming traffic?

People would just do what they felt like doing. Total chaos. Any gathering of people needs conventions and rules. Even a couple living together.

farfromglorified wrote:

Sure. But what's so wrong with allowing people to choose their contribution? I mean, if the government assigned you your job and forced you to work it, regardless of how you felt about it, would you accept "we all have to contribute" as an answer???

That would be ideal, wouldn't it? Bute would have to rely on the generosity of individuals to 'contribute'. People are very selfish by nature. A single person might say 'I don't have kids, I lead a healthy lifestyle and I've never been sick. I'm not going to contribute to building schools or hospitals. I'd rather spend all my money on other material goods.'. What is going to happen when this person does need a hospital or had kids? Are the people who contributed to those going to say 'show us you have helped build and run this hospital.. You haven't? Sorry... can't use it.'

Now.. forcing you into a job... Though there are places where this does exist, let's be reasonable in our arguements. Having a collective responsibility does not mean living under a dictatorship (or worse than that!).

farfromglorified wrote:

Then you buy that car and don't pay the taxes. Stop paying your income taxes. Actually make the choices I'm talking about and see if no one puts a gun to your head.

You wouldn't have a gun to your head. You would have your car taken away, you may be fined. Stop paying your income tax... again, you will be fined, maybe go to jail. You will have broken the rules.... rules that you knew. You accepted the rule when you bought your car - you would pay tax on it. You also accepted the rule when you started working that you would pay income tax.

farfromglorified wrote:

If that were actually true, I don't think you'd have to worry about making taxation optional. People will gladly pay for the things that make their lives better.

Similar answer as above. If taxation were optional, I doubt very much that any government could get much out of their people. I think they may gladly pay for themselves for something that would benefit them directly, but would get really pissed off to see others not contributing and still benefitting. Again, people are inherently selfish.

farfromglorified wrote:

I do understand the rules of the game. That's why I don't like it.

Yep... your choice to play or not.... you can always 'disappear' and therefore not have to abide by some of the rules. You would still need to live, ie purchase goods, use transport (?), etc., but at least you would pay taxes (unless you buy a car!)


There are a lot of the rules I don't like, but if you want to be a halfway decent member of society, you need to learn how to live with them. I'm not saying you need to accept them. You can protest, etc., do your bit to change them.

redrock wrote:

People would just do what they felt like doing. Total chaos. Any gathering of people needs conventions and rules. Even a couple living together.

The last time I checked, few couples living with each other had to arm themselves and enforce their agreements with violence.

That would be ideal, wouldn't it? Bute would have to rely on the generosity of individuals to 'contribute'. People are very selfish by nature. A single person might say 'I don't have kids, I lead a healthy lifestyle and I've never been sick. I'm not going to contribute to building schools or hospitals.

And why shouldn't that be their right? If I start my liquor store, should I be able to force you to buy my liquor if you don't drink?

I'd rather spend all my money on other material goods.'. What is going to happen when this person does need a hospital or had kids? Are the people who contributed to those going to say 'show us you have helped build and run this hospital.. You haven't? Sorry... can't use it.'

If that's how the hospital wants to do things, so be it.

Now.. forcing you into a job... Though there are places where this does exist, let's be reasonable in our arguements. Having a collective responsibility does not mean living under a dictatorship (or worse than that!).

It does mean that. But certainly some dictatorships are far worse than others.

You wouldn't have a gun to your head. You would have your car taken away, you may be fined. Stop paying your income tax... again, you will be fined, maybe go to jail. You will have broken the rules.... rules that you knew. You accepted the rule when you bought your car - you would pay tax on it. You also accepted the rule when you started working that you would pay income tax.

I don't accept any rules just by merely existing. I do not believe in Original Sin.

Similar answer as above. If taxation were optional, I doubt very much that any government could get much out of their people. I think they may gladly pay for themselves for something that would benefit them directly, but would get really pissed off to see others not contributing and still benefitting. Again, people are inherently selfish.

Ok, help me out here. If it's "inherently selfish" to want to choose what to do with your money, what is it to want to choose services? Today, we have millions of Americans who receive government services without paying a dollar. Furthermore, we have millions of Americans who pay for services they don't use. Why are the latter "selfish" if they want out, but the former not for wanting more?

Furthermore, is it not "selfish" to want clean air at the cost of someone else? If "altruism" is your ultimate standard, why not just choke to death in the exhaust fumes of your neighbors Hummers.

I don't understand why "selfish" is some kind of dirty word around here.

Yep... your choice to play or not.... you can always 'disappear' and therefore not have to abide by some of the rules. You would still need to live, ie purchase goods, use transport (?), etc., but at least you would pay taxes (unless you buy a car!)

Yep.

There are a lot of the rules I don't like, but if you want to be a halfway decent member of society, you need to learn how to live with them. I'm not saying you need to accept them. You can protest, etc., do your bit to change them.

See, that's the thing. I can do both. I can be a halfway decent member of this society without your rules. I don't give to charity or treat my employees well or love my family or treat my friends and neighbors with the respect they deserve because of any of your rules.