Death And Taxes

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Medicine Al, Sep 16, 2009.

  1. Ben Franklin is a hero of mine, and this famous quote from him is as near to an absolute truth as can be uttered, in a political discussion, anyway.

    So, what's the unbreakable relationship between the two?

    In my mind, they are both ways that we pay for our lives. What kind of lives we lead, or where they occur, and how much of one is necessary to pay for the other may differ, but they are both Inevitable.

    So...

    Would you rather pay with more taxes, to avoid yours, or another person's unnecessary death?

    Would you rather pay with your life, or another's life, to avoid more taxation?

    As the American National healthcare debate rolls on, isn't this the center core of the issue?

    What will we do with our taxes, until we die? You will be having both happen to you, and you won't like either one, I guarantee.
     
  2. In today's world I'd rather pay more tax, as life is more important than money.

    Once 'taxation' becomes..predominant over life, then it's time to start burning things.

    You gurantee I won't like death? How do you know? :p
     
  3. You act like Franklin enjoyed this perpetual system.

    The history of society is a history of taxation, it is an inevitable outcome of men with power over others. The right to private property is a revolutionary concept which the state detests, they would rather have control over all property. I would say there is nothing more certain than taxes and war, as they are symbiotic.

    Taxation can only be taken so far as the people are content with their loss of liberty, this is why Marx favored a system of central economic planning. The illusion of prosperity can be created on the backs of future generations.

    Equalization slows down progress, that's undeniable, and equalization is the proposed goal of taxes. What we have seen in the US is taxes being used to finance special interests, yet we still cry for more taxes (or "free" stuff, depending on whether you're one of the haves or have-nots) under the assumption that reform of corruption is possible.



    We will be forced to give our labor to the state, and the state will wastefully redistribute it. First to the bureaucrats, then to their preferred industries, and then after passing through all the middle-men, the intended recipient gets a piece of the pie.

    It's hard to imagine what an economy would look like where people got to keep 100% of their labor. There would be less war, that's for certain.
     
  4. ....you don't need taxes to pay for your life, there are these things called charities that are far more efficent than our government.
     
  5. I have to respectfully disagree, if you look at contained economies of socialist systems there is a higher degree of stability and even less war. If you look at the beginnings of American society in the frontier west, where there were less taxes and people kept what they earned, you only found law through the end of a smoking barrel. Those types of societies were ruled by the law of who ever had the bigger weaponry.
     


  6. Such as...? Almost every economy in the world is socialist, including the United States. What makes our position unique is that we are a centralized empire.

    There is no all encompassing EU government that spends money and fights wars like DC.

    You cannot finance war without a central bank, that is fact. It wasn't until the Glorious Revolution that England was able to expand their empire across the globe.



    This is hardly true, you really shouldn't educate yourself on Clint Eastwood movies or old-timey dime novels.

    The West was amazingly peaceful and voluntary for what it was; a group of ambitious, individualistic, rugged men competing to get rich. The notion of a "Wild" West is simply a lucrative myth.
     
  7. You just need to be smart enough to avoid both for as long as possible.
     
  8. Another way to look at how Europe established such a "Social Utopia" is due to the fact that the United States is the big brother protecting you all. After WWII and the creation of NATO Europe was able to rebuild itself with great social programs. Just take a look at the efficiency and success of the railroads in Europe. The only reason that Europe is able to create that "Social Utopia" is due to the US creating a enormous military industrial complex to fund imperialistic wars.
     
  9. In todays society it seems the more money you have, the more your desire grows to protect and add to it..

    I am happy to pay taxes as long as they are used in a meaningful way and not squandered by bureaurats..
     
  10. I'll be one of the first to admit that there is no system currently out there that even comes close to being 'good'.

    Having never even seen a Clint Eastwood movie, I couldn't say anything on this. The simple principle that remains is that individualism promotes greed. Unfortunately a class system, as we also have in the States, also gives to this idea of self worth greater than others (see The Theory of the Leisure Class).

    Most of western civilizations prosperity was built on the backs of the people we have laid waste to, because in our society if you don't have money and aren't a consumer, you arn't worth anything. I don't mind being taxed as long as those taxes are going somewhere positive. Makes me sick that all those dollars I gave to the gov't doing IT are going to pay for some adreniline junky to bust down someone's door, holding a gun to their head because they enjoy something the other doesn't.

    I do think that we have gone a bit off topic from the OP. /insert some idea of no taxation with out representation.

    /concur
     
  11. Greed without repurcussions is what the government promotes though, they create a moral hazard through various forms of safety nets. Governments also produce monopolies. Every government sponsored industry in America is monopolized, and state sanctioned monopolies always lead to exploitation.

    Greed with consequences keeps the individual in check. Consumers will only allow productive monopolies, such as Microsoft or WalMart, and would never stand for exploitation by the giant corporations that currently feed off the state.


    The politically conservative saying that "Greed is good" is true only if you can keep force and fraud from the equation. Government is by nature coercive, and with government on the side of greed you have created a monster.

    If we remove the powers of the state from the ambitions of the greedy we have reduced their ability to negatively influence society. Think 'robber barons' of the industrial revolution, they were political entrepreneurs able to receive subsidies and protectionism from the state.


    If you want to give me some historical examples that contradict this theory feel free.
     
  12. Truth.

    Ok, I admit the question sounded more slanted than I meant it to, so let me add this...

    Sen. Max Baucus's plan sucks ass, it is the completely wrong approach and I hope it dies in committee, so before everyone jumps on my ass, I'd like to get that out of the way.

    We need a plan that actually does more good than harm, and whatever the hell that plan is of his, that I just read...well, that's embarrassing. If that is what we were waiting for, then I'll be getting my pitchfork, too.:D

    But, anyway, there is always Canada...;)

    ?????

    I live in the middle of Gold Rush country, dude, and that was no myth. Lucrative, yes, myth, no. Wild, definitely.

    The myth is bigger, but the actual history is still brutal. Ask the coolies who built the railroad tracks through the Sierra, how brutal.
    [​IMG]
     

  13. Ironically you bring up the exploitative railroad monopolies, whom without the support of Good ol' Uncle Sam and emminent domain would not have existed.

    I'm talking about the "wild" west where it was people left to their own resources, not where government intervenes. Anything the state interferes with naturally turns rotten. The West was relatively peaceful, save for the massacres carried out by the US government and friends.
     
  14. Neither, as long as health care is based around money (Or government), I am sure it will remain flawed.
     
Loading...

Share This Page