Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Cyberchat > Political Issues
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

IMMEDIATE NEED - Solvency II Experts - Associate to Partner Level
Browse Solvency II jobs at www.DWSimpson.com/jobs/in/solvency-ii

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 07-16-2012, 10:51 AM
Incredible Hulctuary's Avatar
Incredible Hulctuary Incredible Hulctuary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 19,026
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Von Raschke View Post
1) Nearly all successful people pay taxes that pay for the services mentioned. Most all also favor government for the services essential to their success.
Except that at the very top, where income is primarily from capital gains and various loopholes are available, they're underpaying for those services relative to their level of usage and benefits.
__________________
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back. - Life-Line, Robert A. Heinlein, 1939

Last edited by Incredible Hulctuary; 07-16-2012 at 10:55 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-16-2012, 10:59 AM
ShebaPoe ShebaPoe is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NY / Palm Beach
Posts: 23,417
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathmajor View Post
Poor phrasing but I agree with the sentiment. I am not delusional or conceited enough to believe that my personal success was solely my doing. I am not angry or bitter that I need to pay taxes to maintain the benefits, opportunities, and protections that society offers.

I'm glad you all don't "need" government. Growing up, I did. I'm an upstanding contributor to society that would not be had society not offered a leg up. Honestly, get over yourselves.
There are two flaws in Obama's reasoning, and your agreement.

The big and obvious flaw in this reasoning is that it relies on the premise that ONLY with government at its current enormous size is an individual's success possible. This is silly and history proves that. A market economy can produce nearly all of the things from which I've benefited, for example, cars, planes, electricity. It is possible for individuals to benefit from others without omnipresent government. Obama's rhetoric discounts this.

The second and smaller flaw is that government itself produces nothing, and almost all of its revenue is derived from individual production. Therefore, increased production must precede increased government, meaning that increased production happened without increased government, so your reasoning contradicts itself.
__________________
The beast of the Southeast. T.M.G.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-16-2012, 11:00 AM
Happy Skunk's Avatar
Happy Skunk Happy Skunk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Hangin' with the Political Pundits
Posts: 11,850
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Incredible Hulctuary View Post
Except that at the very top, where income is primarily from capital gains and various loopholes are available, they're underpaying for those services relative to their level of usage and benefits.
I am gaining more benefit from roads because I own a small business? BS, I commute to work once a day like everyone else. Unless I own a trucking service or something.

Roads are a basic infrastructure item that I have already paid tax for. What country in the world chooses not to have roads?

Should we also argue that business owners should pay more for park services because they get more benefit from the oxygen provided by the trees?
__________________
Happy refers to the network of member firms of Happy IDs, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity.
Your foible here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chillax View Post
Skanks on a Plane.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-16-2012, 11:03 AM
Baron Von Raschke Baron Von Raschke is offline
Member
Aktüerler Derneği
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: On the spectrum
Favorite beer: PBR
Posts: 16,310
Default

We should pay the trees themselves imo.
__________________
Spoiler - Clicky:
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-16-2012, 11:04 AM
Chuck Chuck is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Illinois
Posts: 2,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Incredible Hulctuary View Post
Except that at the very top, where income is primarily from capital gains and various loopholes are available, they're underpaying for those services relative to their level of usage and benefits.
Take all this to its logical conclusion and for everything remotely feasible, we should change taxes to a fees for service structure. I don't think that's such a bad idea where feasible. Of course, then the next step is to force govt to live within their fees and allow private services to compete.

The article mentioned fighting fires. Is there any reason why firefighting can't be a private service just like garbage collection, cable TV, etc?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-16-2012, 11:07 AM
Happy Skunk's Avatar
Happy Skunk Happy Skunk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Hangin' with the Political Pundits
Posts: 11,850
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
Take all this to its logical conclusion and for everything remotely feasible, we should change taxes to a fees for service structure. I don't think that's such a bad idea where feasible. Of course, then the next step is to force govt to live within their fees and allow private services to compete.

The article mentioned fighting fires. Is there any reason why firefighting can't be a private service just like garbage collection, cable TV, etc?
Firefighting used to be but there was this problem of them letting houses burn because they hadn't paid up.

But in your example, would Warren Buffet pay anymore for road service than me? He and I probably use roads the same.
__________________
Happy refers to the network of member firms of Happy IDs, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity.
Your foible here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chillax View Post
Skanks on a Plane.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-16-2012, 11:08 AM
Incredible Hulctuary's Avatar
Incredible Hulctuary Incredible Hulctuary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 19,026
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Skunk View Post
I am gaining more benefit from roads because I own a small business? BS, I commute to work once a day like everyone else. Unless I own a trucking service or something.
You're relying on the roads to enable your customers and suppliers and employees to reach your business, in addition to your own ability to get there.
__________________
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back. - Life-Line, Robert A. Heinlein, 1939
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-16-2012, 11:09 AM
jas66Kent's Avatar
jas66Kent jas66Kent is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Canterbury, UK
Studying for ST2, 4, and 9.
Favorite beer: Corona :)
Posts: 7,685
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathmajor View Post
Poor phrasing but I agree with the sentiment. I am not delusional or conceited enough to believe that my personal success was solely my doing. I am not angry or bitter that I need to pay taxes to maintain the benefits, opportunities, and protections that society offers.

I'm glad you all don't "need" government. Growing up, I did. I'm an upstanding contributor to society that would not be had society not offered a leg up. Honestly, get over yourselves.
You're wasting your breath. I've talked about this and they just don't get it. They seem to think that the infrastructure that they enjoy every day is free and that the Govt. was not responsible for any of it. They have the worst sense of entitlement that I have ever seen in that regard.

I would love to drop these guys off in Somalia and then let them set up a business there. That's when they will realize just how they profit from our infrastructure.

To the wealthy business guy that set up a business, he profits from communications links, roads, police, fire services, the courts, patent offices, etc.. the list is endless. These are all public goods. Without them, he wouldn't have a prayer of having a succesful business.

In Somalia, there's pretty much none of that and a person could just walk into your shop, point a machine gun at you, and take everything you own. And there would be nothing that you could do about it.

The rule of law and security is something the Govt. provides and it's by far the most impiortant thing it gives citizens. i.e. The enforcement of property rights

That's what the succesful, wealthy businessman has received all of his life.

But again, these guys don't see that because they are pretty obtuse. Or just plain crazy
__________________
Paul Brand Libertarians have anti-scientific tendencies. They distrust others. This distrust probably correlates with the value they assign to personal liberty. Libertarians tend to be self-reliant, relying on their own analysis rather than trusting those who have more expertise, more skill, better access to data, and more specialized education on the topic of interest.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-16-2012, 11:10 AM
Incredible Hulctuary's Avatar
Incredible Hulctuary Incredible Hulctuary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 19,026
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Skunk View Post
But in your example, would Warren Buffet pay anymore for road service than me? He and I probably use roads the same.
He might use them the same as you in direct personal mileage, but without those roads the businesses he invested probably wouldn't have been able to grow enough to make him a billionaire.
__________________
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back. - Life-Line, Robert A. Heinlein, 1939
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-16-2012, 11:11 AM
ShebaPoe ShebaPoe is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NY / Palm Beach
Posts: 23,417
Default

Gas taxes take care of road issues. Easy solution. Next question.
__________________
The beast of the Southeast. T.M.G.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.37465 seconds with 7 queries