Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 1569/1637
(27-Jan-2012 at 23:00)
Re: Tax cuts for wealthy Americans?

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
1) Tax is not a purchase. It is paying into a fund which spent by other people. You do not own anything after paying tax. There is no commodity.
When you you pay into any fund that's an investment and its collectively owned.

The treasury is just another investment board which represents the public investors.

Quote:
2) Tax has no individual choice. You cannot choose not to pay tax this week because you are a bit hard up, or choose a cheaper military to protect you.
Exactly. This is the same as: if you don't pay your rent, you get evicted.

Quote:
3) The fund you pay into is spent for the benefit of the entire state, not any individual.
I would hope not. That wouldn't be a very good investment strategy would it.

Quote:
I see that you have dodged the related question: "...explain how Mr A giving nearly all his income to the government while Mr B gives hardly any is fair. How does that work, exactly?"
How does it work? It works because the expense of the state ought to be distributed evenly across its members.

Percentage based contributions breed parasites.
#21  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1570/1637
(27-Jan-2012 at 23:09)
Re: Tax cuts for wealthy Americans?

Originally Posted by filcher: View Post
you are wrong on this. The charges for using some public commodities do not change based on income; riding the bus for example. The difference is that these are services that can be charged by use. Whether rich or poor all pay the same to ride public transit.
I minced my words a bit. I was meaning that the tax collected is in turn spent to benefit everyone, so then why should the wealthy fit the bill and the poor get relatively large returns on their smaller investments.

Quote:
Seriously though, it is more economical to provide base services to the common people than to have them rise up in rebellion like Russia did in 1917.
I'm not that interested in discussing possible unrest. Fear of it does not make good policy. Just because a segment of society feels that they should have something for nothing, doesn't mean that it should be given to them.
#22  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6966/7006
(28-Jan-2012 at 02:47)


Quote:
When you you pay into any fund that's an investment and its collectively owned.
When you pay tax you do not become a part owner of anything, you do not get a return on investment, and you do not get to choose whether to pay or not, or which fund you prefer.

In other words, the two things are not even remotely alike.


Quote:
Exactly. This is the same as: if you don't pay your rent, you get evicted.
You choose to pay rent, when you turn up and say "hey... i would like to move into this property and pay rent for it". Big difference right there.


Quote:
I would hope not. That wouldn't be a very good investment strategy would it.
Actually... the whole point of an investment is that the individuals who invest get a benefit. There would be no point investing if they didn't...


Quote:
How does it work? It works because the expense of the state ought to be distributed evenly across its members.
In what way are, say, 20% and 20% not even? It looks a whole lot more even than, say, A pays 30% and rich guy B pays 15%. I am still waiting for you to explain how that is fair, but you keep avoiding it.


Quote:
Percentage based contributions breed parasites.
Yep... those parasites who pay 15% when they should be paying 35%, and buy themselves a political party to campaign for them to pay even less.


Quote:
I was meaning that the tax collected is in turn spent to benefit everyone
It is spent for the benefit of *the state*, which may or may not benefit the people who live in it.


Quote:
why should the wealthy fit the bill and the poor get relatively large returns on their smaller investments.
1) The wealthy are not paying more. They are paying a *lesser* proportion of their income. What part of 13.9% being *less* than 35% are you struggling to understand?

2) The rich do get more out of the state. They own most of it - that is what rich means. The result is that they have more wealth being protected by the military, more homes of higher value being protected by the police, make more use of infrastructure, etc.

As they own most of the state, they pay more for that privilege. This is why tax is a percentage - if you own 50% more you pay 50% more - and why your fantasy flat rate would only work if everybody had the same income and hence owned the same percentage of the state.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#23  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1571/1637
(29-Jan-2012 at 05:39)
Re: Tax cuts for wealthy Americans?

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
When you pay tax you do not become a part owner of anything, you do not get a return on investment, and you do not get to choose whether to pay or not, or which fund you prefer.

In other words, the two things are not even remotely alike.
Do you even know how investment works? As in, you give money and executive powers over that money to someone you think will return you something you can benefit from.

The sheer fact that tax is spent on something, means that its an investment. The choice not to invest simply result in you leaving the juristiction of that state, in exactly the same way you leave a house you wont pay rent for.

Its a pre-existing agreement for all citizens in the state, created by present citizens for both present and future citizens, because thats how investment works, to benefit present and future.

Quote:
You choose to pay rent, when you turn up and say "hey... i would like to move into this property and pay rent for it". Big difference right there.
It's a collective agreement. Most individuals do not get to decide how your labor is allocated or how exactly your product is implemented in the company, do they?

It's a very basic ecnomic structure at work here. I'm not sure in what universe every individual gets to choose the conditions of his labor and product are micromanaged.

You can only ever choose according to what the situation allows, such as a poor person cannot choose to live in a mansion with 14 bathrooms. His options are restricted. And the situation with tax is either continue to pay it or get out (or go to jail).

Quote:
Actually... the whole point of an investment is that the individuals who invest get a benefit. There would be no point investing if they didn't...
Exactly, and the tax system is designed to by-in-large benefit tax payers.

Quote:
In what way are, say, 20% and 20% not even? It looks a whole lot more even than, say, A pays 30% and rich guy B pays 15%. I am still waiting for you to explain how that is fair, but you keep avoiding it.
But 20% between two different values is not even. You know that.

Quote:
Yep... those parasites who pay 15% when they should be paying 35%, and buy themselves a political party to campaign for them to pay even less.
15% of 40 million is vastly more than 35% of 40 thousand. Given that person of relatively tiny contribution still recieved the same rights and services is extremely generous, and in some cases this is exploited where parasites hardly work at all and take every hand out possible.

Also, if the masses want to get involved in politics, what is stopping them from also buying a political party?

Quote:
It is spent for the benefit of *the state*, which may or may not benefit the people who live in it.
This is true, however that is not the fault of the tax system, but the state itself. The onus is on the citizens to challenge any percieved injustice caused by it.

Quote:
1) The wealthy are not paying more. They are paying a *lesser* proportion of their income. What part of 13.9% being *less* than 35% are you struggling to understand?
The wealthy are paying less in proportion of their income, but income of individuals is irrelevant to the fixed costs of state services. Therefore contributions from individuals ought to also be fixed to reflect the fair and inclusive nature of the service.

Quote:
The rich do get more out of the state. They own most of it - that is what rich means. The result is that they have more wealth being protected by the military, more homes of higher value being protected by the police, make more use of infrastructure, etc.
The police provide a public service avaliable for everyone.

Also, you are wrong. police arn't being called to high value real estate very often. Such facilities can afford their own security.

Quote:
This is why tax is a percentage - if you own 50% more you pay 50% more - and why your fantasy flat rate would only work if everybody had the same income and hence owned the same percentage of the state.
Citizens of the state are allowed to use public services however they see fit, so long as it is law abidding. This is the whole point of having public services. It is irrelevant if you own more or less assets, the point is your always have equal access to public services.

The role of tax collection is to provide these public services. That's not a fantasy. It is the fundamental role of the government to provide it equally for all citizens, regardless of whether or not they can or choose to utilize them. Since public services is provided equally, the expense for it should also be equal.
#24  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6969/7006
(29-Jan-2012 at 10:55)


Quote:
Do you even know how investment works?
Yep... but you clearly don't...


Quote:
As in, you give money and executive powers over that money to someone you think will return you something you can benefit from.
... and here you prove that you don't understand how investment works.

Investment
Definition
An outlay of a sum of money to be used in such a way that a profit or increase in capital may be expected.

The mechanics of the transaction are irrelevant. An investment gives you a financial or economic return. Not just a random 'benefit' of some sort. If tax is an investment, please tell me where I go to get all my tax capital back, with added profit. I would really like to know how you do that.

Which is why...


Quote:
The sheer fact that tax is spent on something, means that its an investment.
... is so ridiculous. All spending is automatically an investment? There is no difference?


Quote:
It's a collective agreement.
It is a private agreement between the landlord and the renter, willingly entered into by both parties, through their own choice.


Quote:
You can only ever choose according to what the situation allows, such as a poor person cannot choose to live in a mansion with 14 bathrooms.
Except for paying tax, where you don't get to choose in any shape or form. Understand yet?


Quote:
Exactly, and the tax system is designed to by-in-large benefit tax payers.
That is what governments always tell you, and you are willing to believe it if you wish. Perhaps, as you are so sure about this, you could explain how buying a bunch of multi-billion dollar stealth bombers makes my life better.


Quote:
But 20% between two different values is not even. You know that.
Only if the income is not even. You know that.

Which is, of course, why they use percentage. if not, Mr A would be giving his entire income to the government while wealthy Mr B is giving only a small percentage - and you *still* haven't explained how that is fair or 'even'.


Quote:
15% of 40 million is vastly more than 35% of 40 thousand.
An income of 40 million is vastly more than an income of 40 thousand. Why do you keep ignoring that?


Quote:
income of individuals is irrelevant to the fixed costs of state services.
No it isn't. Higher income individuals own a larger portion of the states wealth so they pay more for that privilege. If you want a larger car, you pay more. If you want a larger hotel room, you pay more. If you want a larger portion of the states wealth, you pay more.

Tax is not a payment for a service. It is paying into a fund to finance the state.


Quote:
Also, you are wrong. police arn't being called to high value real estate very often. Such facilities can afford their own security.
Ever heard of 'cars'?

That was a silly statement when Invictus said it, and it isn't any better when you copy him.


Quote:
The role of tax collection is to provide these public services. That's not a fantasy.
It is a fantasy. Military is not a public service. Going to war is not a public service. Lending money to other states is not a public service. Interest on national debt is not a public service. Foreign aid is not a public service. Tax breaks for the rich is not a public service. Get the picture?

In the real world, outside right-wing blogs, the role of taxation is to finance state operations.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#25  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1573/1637
(29-Jan-2012 at 12:17)
Re: Tax cuts for wealthy Americans?

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
The mechanics of the transaction are irrelevant. An investment gives you a financial or economic return. Not just a random 'benefit' of some sort.

If tax is an investment, please tell me where I go to get all my tax capital back, with added profit. I would really like to know how you do that.
The investment is in being able to access roads, hospitals and other publics services which in turn increase business efficiency that allows towns and cities to run as well as they do.

Quote:
All spending is automatically an investment? There is no difference?
If the government is spending money for public services, that's an investment in public benefit. Weather or not that is achieved is upto the treasury.

Quote:
It is a private agreement between the landlord and the renter, willingly entered into by both parties, through their own choice.

Except for paying tax, where you don't get to choose in any shape or form.
Circumstancial. Usually you get a job in a certain area and have to live somewhere, right? You don't get a choice if you want to rent or not, you just do. That's the same as tax.

Also, you don't have to pay tax if you don't want you, just like you don't have to live in a house if you don't want to.

Finally, you have to imagine that tax is a collective agreement, so your power of circumstance is totally absent.

Quote:
could explain how buying a bunch of multi-billion dollar stealth bombers makes my life better.
If you don't like that, change it. What taxes are spent on is ultimately what the public allows it to be spent on.

Quote:
Only if the income is not even. You know that.

Which is, of course, why they use percentage. if not, Mr A would be giving his entire income to the government while wealthy Mr B is giving only a small percentage - and you *still* haven't explained how that is fair or 'even'.
I've used multiple analogies to explain why tax ought to be paid as a flat rate.

Whether or not the poorest tier in society can pay it is a seperate issue, linked with labour unions/corruption moreso than government treasury.

Quote:
An income of 40 million is vastly more than an income of 40 thousand. Why do you keep ignoring that?
I'm not ignoring it.

Quote:
If you want a larger car, you pay more. If you want a larger hotel room, you pay more. If you want a larger portion of the states wealth, you pay more.
Obviously. What does this have to do with tax?

Quote:
Tax is not a payment for a service. It is paying into a fund to finance the state.
So the state doesn't provide any services?

Quote:
Ever heard of 'cars'?
May have, why, what do cars have to do with tax?

Quote:
It is a fantasy. Military is not a public service. Going to war is not a public service. Lending money to other states is not a public service. Interest on national debt is not a public service. Foreign aid is not a public service. Tax breaks for the rich is not a public service. Get the picture?

In the real world, outside right-wing blogs, the role of taxation is to finance state operations,
Take it up with management.
#26  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6970/7006
(29-Jan-2012 at 13:28)


Quote:
The investment is in being able to access roads, hospitals and other publics services which in turn increase business efficiency that allows towns and cities to run as well as they do.
Quote:
If the government is spending money for public services, that's an investment in public benefit.
Investment
Definition
An outlay of a sum of money to be used in such a way that *a profit or increase in capital* may be expected.

Making life more comfortable for voters is not a profit or an increase in capital, so it is not an investment. By definition.


Quote:
Usually you get a job in a certain area and have to live somewhere, right? You don't get a choice if you want to rent or not, you just do. That's the same as tax.
Of course you have a choice. Several of them. You choose where to apply for jobs. You then choose whether to take it or not. If you *choose* to take the job, you then choose whether to buy, rent, or live with friends or relatives. If you *choose* to rent, you then choose where to rent and how much you are willing to pay. If you *choose* to rent flat X, you the negotiate with the land-lord.

Nobody gets to choose whether to pay tax or not, or if they do choose to pay how much they want to pay, so no - it is not even close to being the same as tax.


Quote:
What taxes are spent on is ultimately what the public allows it to be spent on.
Oh yeah? When was the last time the public got to vote on what taxes are spent on? Go ahead - give me the date of that referendum.

The budget is set by the government with no reference to the electorate at all.


Quote:
I've used multiple analogies to explain why tax ought to be paid as a flat rate.
You have used the same analogy multiple times, because you are still stuck to the bizarre notion that tax is buying something...


Quote:
I'm not ignoring it.
Yes you are. Mr 40 million owns a much bigger share of the state than Mr 40 thousand and that is why he pays proportionally more tax, except in the USA. You completely ignore the fact that there is that disparity in wealth, and instead pretend that tax buys something.


Quote:
Obviously. What does this have to do with tax?
It is right there in the quote...

" If you want a larger portion of the states wealth, you pay more."

A state, like a hotel, has finite wealth, shared amongst it's population. A state, like a hotel, does not run for free - simply existing has a cost. That cost is shared amongst the population proportional to how much of the state they own.

The more of the state you own, the more you pay for it's administration, etc. just like a hotel that charges more for a bigger room because it cost more to administer, etc.

Try walking into a hotel and demanding the Presidential Suite for the same price as a basic room, arguing that all the rooms get the same services...


Quote:
So the state doesn't provide any services?
Some do, some don't. It is up to the individual government what services they provide and to what degree they provide them. It is up to the individual governments because tax is not buying services, and the electorate get no say in what tax revenue is spent on.


Quote:
May have, why, what do cars have to do with tax?
Criminals can drive them. They can drive them from the poor area they live in to the rich guys house, to rob it. To protect the rich guy from further robbery, the police will have to to the robbers house in the poor distract, after he has driven his loot home in his car, to arrest him.

See how stupid Invictus's argument was? Not the kind of argument you want to be copying.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#27  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1574/1637
(29-Jan-2012 at 23:27)
Re: Tax cuts for wealthy Americans?

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
Investment
Definition
An outlay of a sum of money to be used in such a way that *a profit or increase in capital* may be expected.

Making life more comfortable for voters is not a profit or an increase in capital, so it is not an investment. By definition.
Why doesn't tax increase profit? Treasury should be savy enough to spend it wisely. I've already outlined how basic public spending increases the bottom line of busines.

Suppose as an example your city is to host an international sporting event, your kabab shop will profit from that versus the amount of money you contributed to the city to host it.

Quote:
Of course you have a choice. Several of them. You choose where to apply for jobs. You then choose whether to take it or not. If you *choose* to take the job, you then choose whether to buy, rent, or live with friends or relatives. If you *choose* to rent, you then choose where to rent and how much you are willing to pay. If you *choose* to rent flat X, you the negotiate with the land-lord.
Of course you have a choice. Several of them. You choose which country you want to live in. You then choose whether to pay tax to it or not. If you *choose* to live there, you then choose which tax bracket you want to fit in and your income level accordingly. If you choose to pay tax in bracket X, you negotiate with your accountant.

Quote:
Oh yeah? When was the last time the public got to vote on what taxes are spent on? Go ahead - give me the date of that referendum.
The democratic process usually doesn't work that way. It is implied in your vote that you are effecting the way taxes are spent. If that isnt succesful, then you campaign to change it. There are thousands of examples of the latter. The public has the power, they alone can bind together and decide whatever they want.

Quote:
You have used the same analogy multiple times, because you are still stuck to the bizarre notion that tax is buying something...
So tax isn't buying anything?

Now that's a bizarre thing to say.

Quote:
Mr 40 million owns a much bigger share of the state than Mr 40 thousand and that is why he pays proportionally more tax, except in the USA. You completely ignore the fact that there is that disparity in wealth, and instead pretend that tax buys something.
No matter how rich you are, it's impossible to own public assests.

I don't understand what the private sector has to do with public services. A spade is a spade, it still works the same whoever uses it.

Quote:
It is right there in the quote...

" If you want a larger portion of the states wealth, you pay more."

A state, like a hotel, has finite wealth, shared amongst it's population. A state, like a hotel, does not run for free - simply existing has a cost. That cost is shared amongst the population proportional to how much of the state they own.

The more of the state you own, the more you pay for it's administration, etc. just like a hotel that charges more for a bigger room because it cost more to administer, etc.

Try walking into a hotel and demanding the Presidential Suite for the same price as a basic room, arguing that all the rooms get the same services...
The state does not own the 'hotel', the private sector does, so the analogy doesn't work.

But we can tweek it.

The government is more like a third party company which provides the staff in a hotel, whilst the hotel itself is privately owned. In this case the staff get paid at a flat rate, no matter which room they get called to.

Quote:
Criminals can drive them. They can drive them from the poor area they live in to the rich guys house, to rob it. To protect the rich guy from further robbery, the police will have to to the robbers house in the poor distract, after he has driven his loot home in his car, to arrest him.
O.K. so criminals exist and they use roads to drive their cars. What is so special about that?
#28  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6971/7006
(30-Jan-2012 at 14:55)


Quote:
Why doesn't tax increase profit?
Because it isn't meant to. It is not an investment. We have things called 'central banks' to do that, but they don't use tax revenue.


Quote:
Treasury should be savy enough to spend it wisely.
They do, in theory, but as tax is neither purchasing a service nor making an investment that wise spending is from the point of view of sustaining the state.


Quote:
You choose which country you want to live in. You then choose whether to pay tax to it or not.
So where is this country with no tax that you imagine you could choose to live in?


Quote:
It is implied in your vote that you are effecting the way taxes are spent.
Which political party is giving voters a choice of how tax revenue is spent?


Quote:
So tax isn't buying anything?
Correct. It is paying into a fund to finance the running of the state.


Quote:
No matter how rich you are, it's impossible to own public assests.
"Mr 40 million owns a much bigger share of the state than Mr 40 thousand and that is why he pays proportionally more tax, except in the USA."

Who said anything about public assets, other than you?


Quote:
The state does not own the 'hotel', the private sector does, so the analogy doesn't work.
Learn the difference between 'state' and 'government'. The analogy works fine - you just don't like it.


Quote:
O.K. so criminals exist and they use roads to drive their cars. What is so special about that?
It means that when police arrest a criminal in some ghetto, it is still protecting the rich who live anywhere near a road, so the "you are wrong. police arn't being called to high value real estate very often." argument that you copied from Invictus makes no sense at all.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#29  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1575/1637
(31-Jan-2012 at 01:26)
Re: Tax cuts for wealthy Americans?

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
Because it isn't meant to. It is not an investment. We have things called 'central banks' to do that, but they don't use tax revenue.
Education. That's an investment.

Health. That's an investment.

Infastructure. That's an investment.

All of these things you pay tax for and they all make macro profits. So there.

Quote:
So where is this country with no tax that you imagine you could choose to live in?
Never heard of tax havens?

What about Singapore? If you don't earn more than 20k it's tax free.

You could also live in a remote place. Disappear. Plenty of survivalist rednecks dodge tax.

Quote:
Which political party is giving voters a choice of how tax revenue is spent?
VoR's party.

Quote:
Correct. It is paying into a fund to finance the running of the state.
I'm starting to get the feeling that you don't like funding bureaucracy very much.

What would you suggest instead?

Quote:
"Mr 40 million owns a much bigger share of the state than Mr 40 thousand and that is why he pays proportionally more tax, except in the USA."

Who said anything about public assets, other than you?
Why should someone with more money pay more tax? That is, if control of public assests has nothing to do with it?

Quote:
Learn the difference between 'state' and 'government'. The analogy works fine - you just don't like it.
Riiiight. Government is the management of the state, but the 'state' only owns public assests. Therefore, it doesn't own the hotel, only a small 'public' sector, which is, in your own words, limited to the running of the 'state', i.e. public operations, i.e. third party room service.

Quote:
It means that when police arrest a criminal in some ghetto, it is still protecting the rich who live anywhere near a road, so the "you are wrong. police arn't being called to high value real estate very often." argument that you copied from Invictus makes no sense at all.
Yes, VoR, catching criminals helps society. Gold star for you.
#30  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6972/7006
(31-Jan-2012 at 10:24)


Quote:
Education. That's an investment.

Health. That's an investment.

Infastructure. That's an investment.
Really? Let me ask you again then. Where do I go to retrieve the capital I invested in education, health, and infrastructure via my taxes, plus the profit I made on it?


Quote:
Never heard of tax havens?
Yes, and I know how they work. Specifically, I know that they are havens only for businesses that are foreign owned, and don't trade in that country.

"...tax havens have a double monetary control system which distinguish residents from non-resident as well as foreign currency from the domestic one. In general, residents are subject to monetary controls but not non-residents."

So, for a second time, where can I go to *live* that will not tax me?


Quote:
What about Singapore? If you don't earn more than 20k it's tax free.
Congratulations, you just discovered tax thresh holds...

If you earn less that 20k in Singapore, you are living on the streets.


Quote:
I'm starting to get the feeling that you don't like funding bureaucracy very much.

What would you suggest instead?
I am not a US Republican. I understand that administering a state cannot be done for free, so I don't bitch about taxes.


Quote:
Why should someone with more money pay more tax?
Because they own a bigger slice of the state the taxes are supporting.

You still haven't explained how Mr A giving his entire income to the government while wealthy Mr B is giving only a small percentage is fair. It is becoming glaringly obvious that you can't explain that.


Quote:
the 'state' only owns public assests
The *government* owns public assets. I knew you were confused...

From the OED:

'A body of people occupying a defined territory and organized under a sovereign government. Hence occas. the territory occupied by such a body.'

That body of people, exactly as I said, have finite wealth shared out unevenly amongst the individuals ("A state, like a hotel, has finite wealth, shared amongst it's population.") , who pay tax dependant on how much of the collective wealth of the state they own - just like paying more if you want a bigger room in a hotel, or a larger house, or anything else that involves taking a larger portion of anything.


Quote:
Yes, VoR, catching criminals helps society. Gold star for you.
Don't bitch at me. It was you that chose to copy Invictus's childish argument: "you are wrong. police arn't being called to high value real estate very often."

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#31  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
36 million Americans live in poverty Voice of Reason Respectable General Discussions 270 02-Oct-2007 03:54
At last ! The war between Spain & the USA war is over ! Grashnak The Lunatic Asylum 1 28-May-2006 02:50
Income Tax Versus Sales Tax Sygnal Respectable General Discussions 9 14-Feb-2006 00:06
the undead are still way too weak Rockman n00blet The Lunatic Asylum 20 07-Mar-2001 02:03
We need GB:protection from thieves Sad but True The Lunatic Asylum 0 22-Dec-2000 09:42


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 22:36.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.