 | | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Altruism is a bad idea? (was Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!)
|
|
(...) Isn't it pretty sad to think that there is nothing you could do to "earn" charity? Wouldn't it be better if you went up to a church (or any other building) and offered to pick up trash in their parking lot for a hot meal and a roof to sleep (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) Generosity makes us better people (at least in my code of values--if it doesn't in yours then there's nothing but for us to agree to disagree). If our "generosity" is fueled only by a desire to earn a space in heaven, we are buying, not (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) Everyone who buys anything (excepting a few items like food and, in some cases, clothing) already pays taxes, so this particular fallacy as you frame it does not exist in the governor's reasoning. 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!)
|
|
(...) Allow me a maudlin, over-wrought digression: We're *all* street people. It's just that some of us have had the good luck to be related to wealthy people, and others have had the good luck to achieve a personal wealth by what they perceive as (...) (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!)
|
|
(...) I'm not 100% sure, but it sounds like you're working from a Randian definition of altruism, which is like working from a Falwellian definition of pornography. I don't know why we'd want to pick that particular slant as the "right" definition (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
