 | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) Et tu, Dave!? This is the same "love it or leave it" crap that one normally hears from the right. It is also a straw man, there is of course the alternative of simply staying and trying to "improve" the system. Improve is in quotes because one (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) My point is that the *amount* isn't what's at stake, but the participation in the specific tax--sales tax, income tax, franchise tax, VAT, etc. Otherwise we're arguing about magic numbers--if $10 is sufficient, why not $11, etc.--and that's (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) I concur--I just wanted the clarity. (...) The idea of 'pay what you owe' is ingrained into my nature by my parents. Those folks who 'take the system for granted' without putting into the (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) If $10 per anum was considered a satisfactory level of payment, then surely a greater tax (sales tax, etc.) is at least as satisfactory? Indeed, I believe the proposal suggested that welfare (gleaned from taxes) be provided to the poor so that (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) But that just postpones the argument, rather than resolving it. (I continue this point below.) (...) Here we may be at a crux of our disagreement. Why doesn't the public good qualify as charity? Are there circumstances under which it might (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) Beat me to it! :) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) Then it's a matter of degrees--the more you pay in taxes the less you are a squatter? Dave K (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) No moreso than if they pay the $10 per annum tax that you proposed. And I would suggest the person in my example is less of a squatter, since yearly sales tax (plus hidden taxes like tariffs, etc.) would almost certainly exceed $10. Dave! (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Altruism is a bad idea? (was Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!)
|
|
(...) You propose a valid system, but any kind of work-to-earn-charity scheme seems either to disqualify the relevent gift as charity or else to qualify all payment-for-work as charity. Do you consider your paycheck a charitable contribution from (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) They share part of the tax burden. But if they don't share the full tax burden, aren't they just, as you put it in another reply to me, squatters? Best regards, Carl (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
