 | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) 'Twas ever thus... We are all of us prostitutes and it's always about price. -- Hop-Frog (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) Paying one's "fair share" is only relevant to WHERE one owes it. I think you are failing to understand precisely why the royal family of England owns so much property in the U.S. -- because it's cheaper for them here than in their own country! (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) All right, but the point remains. Under my example, the low-wealth person *is* participating in the tax framework, just as readily as if you'd assigned some low figure as an appropriate level of taxation. I don't think it's material to quibble (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) The key word is "wealthy benefactor;" it's charity because a person has decided to do something of no advantage to himself or herself that does enormous good to others. It's also not charity by proxy; it's charity at an individual level. I (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) Hey, you stinker--I've told you before that if you don't actually agree with me, you're supposed to pretend that you do. And anyway, I don't use strawman arguments--my fallacy was the false dilemma, thankyouverymuch. 8^) Anyway, I didn't quite (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
