 | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
Rearranged slightly to make a point (...) All good. Assuming you did your research, that is. (...) Terrible idea. Why would you want to do that?(1) ALL your examples above are worthy charities (based on the assumption that you as donor have (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Altruism is a bad idea? (was Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!)
|
|
(...) And here I was thinking that "all rights are property rights" was a strange belief. Adieu Richie Dulin (2 URLs) Port Brique Somewhere in the South Pacifique (2 URLs) Misérable Building a safer South Pacifique (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Altruism is a bad idea? (was Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!)
|
|
(...) I grant that the assertion that altruism is a bad idea sounds a bit unusual. It's not a new assertion, however. I've made it before. Either review what was said then, or feel free to demonstrate that altruism IS a good idea, if you like... But (...) (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!)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <anip> (...) Perfectly said, Larry. Walking down the street years ago, guy says, "Hey, spot me some coin for a coffee?" Well, we just happen to be close to a Tim Hortins (Canadian version of 'coffee (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) Point taken--probably not the best illustration of charity. "Buy a panhandler a meal" would have been a better example. Religiously speaking, Jesus would have helped the panhandler to overcome addiction, adversity, laziness, or whatever other (...) (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, Carl Nelson wrote: <snip> (...) I don't believe in the Beatles, I just believe in me. After all, he was the walrus.... I could be the walrus... still wouldn't change the fact that I don't own a car... "...I recall Central (...) (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)
|
| |
| | 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: 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: 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: 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!
|
|
(...) 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: 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!
|
|
(...) 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!
|
|
(...) 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!
|
|
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!
|
|
(...) 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!
|
|
(...) 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!
|
|
(...) 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!
|
|
(...) '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!
|
|
(...) Thus one problem with our tax system--gas tax to pay for roads, federal income tax to pay DC, and local to pay the county school board. If I don't pay gas tax I'm not paying my part for the roads, am I? And it doesn't address the central (...) (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, Carl Nelson wrote: **snip of the points I think we've identified as mutually un-convinceable** (...) Definitely. The analogy I was looking for but couldn't recall was the frog in the pan of boiling water. If you drop him (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) But they don't 'dodge a tax burden' here. If they have land here, then they pay property tax here. Further, if they own land here, chances are they visit said land and therefore spend other monies here as well. Whether or not they spend more (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) I don't know about Dave!, but I favor any of the above over our current system of taxation. FWIW, the question of how the tax is levied leaves to the side two main issues: how much to tax and how to handle corporate taxes. I unequivocally (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) Ah, the myth of the global economy rears its ugly head! The global economy is only good for people that can move hundreds of millions from a country doing poorly to one that is doing better. If you are not dealing in hundreds of millions then (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) Of course, if that is true, we're also all clients. Do we gain both ways? ;-) Pedro (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Altruism is a bad idea? (was Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!)
|
|
(...) -snip- (...) Where did that definition come from? Did you make it up by yourself? It seems to be a very nice definition for your purposes. But wait, you said "it's better if..." in there! That's pretty odd for a system determine if an act is (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
Good points, but like most fictions in life, we stick to entity status for corporations because it largely works. For every bad corporation that makes the news, there are handfuls of good ones that promote employee welfare and good corporate (...) (21 years ago, 14-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) Wow--I kinda had the feeling from reading this NG for a while that you & I might never agree on anything! :) I lean towards a national sales tax for several reasons: 1) Given 3 common economic behaviors, production (including reinvestment), (...) (21 years ago, 14-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) Strongly disagree -- as you knew I would. Your statement ignores the social contract that corporations have with the societies that provide them with the fiction that makes any of their business possible in the first place. It is not for (...) (21 years ago, 14-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) Well-put, and I don't disagree with the sentiment. After all, I'm supporting a position that good works are a reward in and of themselves without regard to any fiscal gain or loss! But to be a contrarian, a social contract isn't enforceable (...) (21 years ago, 14-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) One primary recourse is for the government simply to declare off-shore tax-shelters illegal for corporations that do not maintain their primary base-of-operations there (Corporate Shills in the Legislature have squawked that this is an (...) (21 years ago, 14-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!)
|
|
(...) No. If you give me a roof to put over my head for a nite, that may well be worth a lot more than an hour's time picking up the parking lot is worth. (best I could do on short notice on the way back from BF was around 50-60 a nite but it's a (...) (21 years ago, 14-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!)
|
|
(...) This may simply be a matter of our differing perspectives. If you are a uniquely qualified brain surgeon and you agree perform a highly complex operation for $5.00, then that particular operation is worth (in dollar terms) exactly $5.00. (...) (21 years ago, 14-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!)
|
|
(...) But if you're saying paying 40k for a 1978 Pinto isn't charity, and that any exchange where both sides assign a "value" to the exchange, then altruism or charity can only happen when one side assigns no value whatsoever to the transaction, (...) (21 years ago, 14-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
|
|
(...) Just my 2c Altruism: Carpooling (with some non-car-owners too). Charity: Picking up a hitchhiker (now and then). Best DaveG (21 years ago, 15-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
