I.R.S. loses court battle.

[Spotter]

Exactly. It cost me basically nothing. So I pay taxes when I receive enough income to not get it refunded, and when I buy things, but that's what taxes are for: They allow the government to function. It's not costing me huge hospital bills. I had to pay nothing special to get treatment.

Okay, I understand how you can justify that it basically cost you nothing (although I don't agree), and I'm not at all disagreeing that in order for government (at any level) to provide services to its citizens, it must raise money via taxes, tariffs, etc. The main point I'm putting forward is whether or not the Federal government of the United States should be providing the level of "services" that it is providing.

I'm wondering where this "85%" number comes from. I'm also questioning how it's cheaper for a student to go to private school than public school. Or are you referring to the public/private sectors in general? If so, I'm doubly curious as to where your number comes from, and also curious as to how much more effectively, and how much cheaper.

Fair enough. The "85%" number is simultaneously my rough estimation of how much of the FEDERAL government's activities are in areas where they shouldn't be operating AND my rough estimation as to how much of the FEDERAL government's activities could be done more effectively by government entities of smaller granularity and/or private enterprise.

Is it cheaper right now for kids to go to private schools versus public schools? Well, no, obviously, as parents sending their kids to public schools have their tuition bills (a.k.a.:taxes) subsidized by people like me who are sending their kids to private schools, yet still have to pay taxes used by the school system. Take away these subsidies, force schools to compete for resources (the best teachers, the best administrators, etc.), and return these tax dollars to the taxpayers. Once consumers are forced to fund the bills themselves, they have to start comparison shopping, and the market responds. Quality schools would emerge at all price points, with differentiation coming from "extras" being offered.

The "government" isn't a single, inscrutible being. It's not a shadowy secret council that exists seperate of the country. It's comprised of and chosen by the citizens. They're sort of like union leaders, if you would. And just like unions charging union dues, the government taxes its people to remain effective. Like a powerless union, the government has no right to exist when it can't provide anything for the citizens who make it up. The constitution that's being touted so heavily here would have no meaning if the government was so powerless.

I'm the one who keeps specifying which level of government I'm referring to - largely the FEDERAL government. And I don't think anywhere I've said I want to see the FEDERAL government powerless, I've just said I want to see it apply that power where it is Constitutionally mandated to apply that power.

You're labouring under the impression that I care to snowball huge arguments where everyone responds to every minute little point said by the other. I'm simply arguing against that which argues against my main points, and not branching out into useless "refute everything your opponent says" quibbling.

I'm labouring under the impression that you care about what you say, and care enough to respond when I respond to points you bring up.

You're also labouring under the impression that you're doing a very good job of arguing your point with broad generalizations and numbers from out of nowhere. But take heart, you're doing better than ninetales1234, who starts with the object of his proof as one of his first assumptions, written in a nice, friendly boldface, and only gets worse from there.

I've confessed that my one "number from out of nowhere" is indeed only a personal estimate. And I've only made "broad generalizations" where they are appropriate, such as when I state that "in general", private enterprise can deliver services more efficiently than a government agency with no incentive to be efficient.

And I'd hold back on judging the quality of my arguments - coming from my point of view, your arguments don't appear to hold much water, either. But instead of attacking ad hominem, I try to maintain my focus on the issues.

S.

 

[Prime]

Marril, I didn't say anything about your points not working because your not from the US.

I don't like the government abusing my "god given rights" and abusing the constitution in general. There are many things messed up about the United States, if I had to go into detail about each one, I'd be here for a while.

 

[Marril]

Quality schools would emerge at all price points, with differentiation coming from "extras" being offered.

But yet, there would still be people who are forced to have an insufficient education solely because they lack the money needed to "fund the bills themselves." Why should those with little or no money be punished as far as opportunities go? Isn't it better for society when everyone is well-educated?

And I don't think anywhere I've said I want to see the FEDERAL government powerless, I've just said I want to see it apply that power where it is Constitutionally mandated to apply that power.

And originally the constitution supported slavery, as was pointed out earlier in this thread. Yet that part doesn't apply anymore. Who's to say that the constitution in its current incarnation is perfect? Why should the "the constitution doesn't support it, therefore it's wrong" argument automatically have to be taken as true?

I'm labouring under the impression that you care about what you say, and care enough to respond when I respond to points you bring up.

I care to respond to the points which argue that which I have to say. I'm not going to argue every last little tangent out of some false idea of "credibility."

And I've only made "broad generalizations" where they are appropriate, such as when I state that "in general", private enterprise can deliver services more efficiently than a government agency with no incentive to be efficient.

You you concede that there are times when government agencies can exceed private enterprise. It's preferable when they do, as well, since the agencies generally don't have to care about direct profit like corporations do.

But instead of attacking ad hominem, I try to maintain my focus on the issues.

An ad hominem is a personal trait of the opponent used to discredit his arguments. For example, "My opponent cheats at the Pokémon TCG, therefore his argument about the Pokémon Diamond video game is wrong" is an ad hominem. Saying something like, "my opponent starts with the assumption that his stance is irrefutable, therefore he's not arguing very effectively" is not an ad hominem, as it relates directly to the discussion at hand.

Marril, I didn't say anything about your points not working because your not from the US.

It's what I guessed was implied, but if that's not the case then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

[Spotter]

This is my last, and then I'm done with this. I understand why you win all of your arguments - you simply bludgeon your opponents with something that in no way resembles logic until they go insane from trying to figure you out.

But yet, there would still be people who are forced to have an insufficient education solely because they lack the money needed to "fund the bills themselves." Why should those with little or no money be punished as far as opportunities go? Isn't it better for society when everyone is well-educated?

And people aren't getting "insufficient educations" as it is?

And originally the constitution supported slavery, as was pointed out earlier in this thread. Yet that part doesn't apply anymore. Who's to say that the constitution in its current incarnation is perfect? Why should the "the constitution doesn't support it, therefore it's wrong" argument automatically have to be taken as true?

The Constitution does not, and did not, support slavery. Since it was not specifically delineated within, the issue of the 'peculiar institution' was left where it belonged - the responsibility of the states.

You you concede that there are times when government agencies can exceed private enterprise. It's preferable when they do, as well, since the agencies generally don't have to care about direct profit like corporations do.

Yeah, they don't have to care about anything. The drive to increase profit is what drives efficiency and effectiveness.

An ad hominem is a personal trait of the opponent used to discredit his arguments. For example, "My opponent cheats at the Pokémon TCG, therefore his argument about the Pokémon Diamond video game is wrong" is an ad hominem. Saying something like, "my opponent starts with the assumption that his stance is irrefutable, therefore he's not arguing very effectively" is not an ad hominem, as it relates directly to the discussion at hand.

Nice. Let me quote Wikipedia as well:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

You're also labouring under the impression that you're doing a very good job of arguing your point. . .

Exit, stage left.
S.

 

[Prime]

I wonder who came up with the idea of taking 30% of our income and giving it to the government? And then when the government charges you for something based on your income, they base it on your income BEFORE taxes is taken out. That's pretty messed up right there. I see it all the time.

 

[ninetales1234]

Who's to say that the constitution in its current incarnation is perfect? Why should the "the constitution doesn't support it, therefore it's wrong" argument automatically have to be taken as true?

I'm not a really big supporter of the current US Constitution. It has its problems. So, no, we should not support the Constitution right or wrong. The Consitution authorizes the establishment of a postal service, yet many agree it should be abolished.

However, the concept of a Constitution is important. It is important to have a set of rules. Without a "Supreme law of the land" for the government to follow (remember, the Constitution is a set of rules for them, not us) we would have government disorder; the government would be able to get away with whatever it wanted. Unfortunately, we have disorder anyway, in spite of the Constitution (due to flaws in the Constitution and cultural problems which I will not go into here).

So, to answer your question, people want the government to obey the Constitution, not because it is good, but because it is the Supreme law of the land, law which our government officials agreed to follow. It is defines what our government is, and is intended to prevent it from getting too big.

If you want to set a fire in your house, you have a place for it: a fireplace. Any time that fire is outside of the fireplace, it is a bad fire.

How about you stop using any and all government programs and property before you start saying these things? You make use of them, so clearly you must approve of them on at least some level.

I do my best to avoid the government whenever possible.
I don't accept subsidies and I don't accept jobs from the state.
I do pay all the taxes I'm "supposed to" right now, but I intend to stop as soon as it becomes practical to do so. I won't be alone. If enough people stopped paying taxes, the state would not be able to stop them all. Noncompliance and civil disobedience, I believe, in the long run, will be a lot more effective than fighting it out in the courts (government courts :tongue
The government never asked me if I wanted any of their services.

 

[Marril]

I understand why you win all of your arguments - you simply bludgeon your opponents with something that in no way resembles logic until they go insane from trying to figure you out.

You give me too little credit. I don't bludgeon people with illogical arguments. If I did, I wouldn't be regarded as the invincible Marril.

I do my best to avoid the government whenever possible.

I did mean "everything." If the government maintains your roads, then you do not use their roads. If the government maintains your parks, then you stay out of their parks. And so on.

 

[ryanvergel]

No need to abolish the postal service. Companies like UPS will soon offer better, more reliable service, at more affordable rates and through competition the USPS will be removed.

Competition is amazing at breeding better systems.

 

[Robert ex]

You give me too little credit. I don't bludgeon people with illogical arguments. If I did, I wouldn't be regarded as the invincible Marril.​

...the invincible Marril? :lol: :lol: :lol: Oh, please! You'd probably wet yourself if you actually had to step out of your fantasy world.​

Is it really that difficult to become a "genius" among a tiny group of kids who play Pokemon? Would it hurt you to know this can easily be perceived as blustery arrogance, rather than intellectual prowess? Some people just THINK they know everything -- all the time -- no matter how inexperienced, nescient, or one-sided they are.​

Wow. Your cutting wit and biting social commentary almost worked its magic and convinced me that your stance on this position is above reproach.​

I managed to fight through it, however, and realize that you posted neither a stance nor an explanation as to why you have discounted the credibility of the argument.​

Any explanation as to why you found it necessary to stop reading the article? I'm suspecting it had something to do with the use of the word 'patriot', which, based on what I've read of your other postings, I'm sure you find offensive.​

Spotter, I'm surprised you carried this conversation any further than this post (above). It seems to me your analysis was "right on" from the beginning (e.g. the word 'patriot' being offensive). Arguing with a Canadian socialist about America's freedoms and Constitution seems rather pointless -- especially with someone who's on "the left side" of politics up there (wow, it's hard to believe that's even possible).​

God Bless Canada!! ...as long as they stay there. :wink:​

Competition is amazing at breeding better systems.​

Amen to that.​

​

 

[vanderbilt_grad]

Having worked both in the private sector and as a government employee for a number of years each I can say for a fact that:

1. The government bureaucracy wastes money ... but it does so in pretty much the same ways that large businesses do, though bureaucratic mistakes, turf battles, and regular mismanagement. The Peter Principle, that folks get promoted until they finally reach a job that they can’t handle is in full force everywhere. Now direct grants and other sorts of congressional pork are a different matter, but then again have any of you guys ever seen what perks the people at the top of the corporate ladder get? I fully agree with arguments that there is government waste and it makes me mad ... but I also get angry that some of the same folks blatantly overlook the fact that corporate waste/fraud/corruption exists as well and that it is just as bad if not worse for our country.

2. The American federal government is a toolbox owned & used by its citizens. Some folks like small toolboxes and are willing to buy a special tool at higher prices if it turns out they need it later while others like to have every tool in the box exactly when they need it even if they end up paying for things that they don’t use very often if ever. But while you can argue all day long about how you think that the government bureaucracy should be setup and run ... just arguing that government is bad is pretty much arguing that America itself is bad. Government exists to make our country the way we, as a whole, want it to be (safe, easy to travel in, etc), even if this ends up being bad for some of our citizens or corporations as individuals.

3. Government institutions can actually do a good job at some things, just not everything. Sometimes big government can do things better than the private sector other times they can’t, but it is a mistake to assume that the free market is always the best solution to everything. The postal service / ups thing is a *great* example because it shows the strengths and weaknesses of both kinds of organization. UPS is fast, cost efficient, and focused on customer service ... but they simply don’t have offices everywhere. Plenty of small, rural, communities all over the US don’t have a UPS office that they can go to or expect service from. In a city of reasonable size UPS can make money but putting an office in every little one stoplight town is a money loosing proposition for them. The US Postal Service on the other hand exists to serve everyone, even if they live in an area where there is little money to be made. The rational being that reliable mail service is good for the US as a whole. They might be less efficient than UPS but their mission is different and efficiency will be a direct cost of what they have been directed to do. The same sorts of things show up when it comes to phone access, internet access, and such. Delivering that “last mile” of service to every home is expensive and, without government intervention of some sort, unlikely to happen in a totally free market. You can have great arguments about whether or not these sorts of services should be something that government takes a hand in ... but for wide scale missions the government can do a good job.

4. Overregulation of private business is bad ... but underregulation can be too. Take child labor as an example. Employing children to do dangerous jobs for a pittance was a great way for corporations to save money ... but very bad for society as a whole. On the other hand overregulation is really hard on many industries and leads to pointless costs and wastes of time. I’m thinking of the Electricity Industry as an example of the latter. The trick of course if finding a good balance point, and this is something that’s hard to achieve consensus on, especially on issues that are less contentious and more nuanced.

5. Good people are everywhere ... and unfortunately so are bad ones. I can cite examples of hard working folks who are good at their jobs from both my corporate days and my government days. I can also give examples of lazy and incompetent people from both. In fact the best, brightest, and most motivated group of folks I worked with was from my government days. I’ve seen really terrible folks both in and out of government too. I remember one small business that had had 300 employees total in 3 years and currently employed around 100 when I worked there. However 150 of the folks who had rotated in and out had all be in one small area that had a headcount of 15 or so. The person managing that area was quite simply, terrible. Folks hated her and usually quit once they realized what they had gotten into. What I don’t think that folks realize about many government employees is that they usually move back and forth between government and private work. They might work at a large company for a while and then go into government work ... or they might start out in government and then eventually start their own small business. You simply can’t make assumptions about a certain type of people working in government service these days, just like you can’t in the business world.

You know, one of the reasons I like Pokemon is that it’s simple. The real world? It isn't.

 

[Marril]

...the invincible Marril? Oh, please! You'd probably wet yourself if you actually had to step out of your fantasy world.

Oh, quite untrue. I've had to go up against people who were easily my equal or better, albeit almost always not on this site. Even then, I have a hard time losing, although it occasionally happens. But as far as the 'Gym goes? I'm nigh-on invincible.

It seems to me your analysis was "right on" from the beginning (e.g. the word 'patriot' being offensive).

And this is why I don't take your arguments seriously. Right from the start, you make an assumption that this sort of thing is true despite that I've already told you it's false.

God Bless Canada!! ...as long as they stay there.

I would apply the same to America.

--

As for vanderbilt_grad: Well said.

 

[Articjedi]

Vanderbilt hit it, he's probably said more truth than anyone else in this thread. What is it with you people and thinking the only way something works is by throwing everything to the private sector or everything to the government. They both work pretty well at different things.

I don't like the fact that I have to wait an extra 6 months for my passport now that the job got passed to a private company that was completely unprepared for the new laws, maybe the private sector doesn't always get it right either.

 

[Regis_Neo]

Being a future accountant, all I can say is that the tax laws are complex and something I'd rather not specialize in, lol.

 

[Cyrus]

Oh, quite untrue. I've had to go up against people who were easily my equal or better, albeit almost always not on this site. Even then, I have a hard time losing, although it occasionally happens. But as far as the 'Gym goes? I'm nigh-on invincible.

It's not that you're invincible. It's the fact that you're trying to debate pressing political issues on a message board...about Pokemon. Most people visiting here are usually not in the frame of mind to discuss deep, complex things on a hobby board, so of course you're nearly undefeated.

With that said, I think I'll go Blaziken the 17th Amendment, and light it with some Budew.

 

[Marril]

It's not that you're invincible. It's the fact that you're trying to debate pressing political issues on a message board...about Pokemon.

I never said it was a stunning or life-fulfilling achievement.

 

[Bullet]

About time is all I can say.

Thats 1 of the problems, time to fix more of them including minimum wage.

One of the biggest problems I have seen so far is the working man works to make money and cant even pay for the essentials unless he lived in a tent. Food, Electric, house Payment, Car payment, taxes on all of those. Yet foreigners come over here and thats where your tax money goes, to get them doctors and set them up in business to make thousands all for free by the government.

 

[Marril]

Thats 1 of the problems, time to fix more of them including minimum wage.

One of the biggest problems I have seen so far is the working man works to make money and cant even pay for the essentials unless he lived in a tent. Food, Electric, house Payment, Car payment, taxes on all of those. Yet foreigners come over here and thats where your tax money goes, to get them doctors and set them up in business to make thousands all for free by the government.

I agree. Raising the minimum wage to accomodate for inflation and forcing employers to pay equal wages to illegal immigrants as well as citizens would go a long way to solving those problems.

 

[evil psyduck]

Ya pay the illegals more and you will have even more of them here. The best thing to do if they are illegal is give them jail time and ship them back to their own country after they serve time.

 

[Marril]

Pay "the illegals" the same as the citizens and there's no incentive for companies to hire them over citizens.

 

[evil psyduck]

But there is more of an incentive for the illegals to be here. DUH