The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » So what's the best income tax rate? (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..6..9..12..15..17~18~19~20~21~22~23 [Next]
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 14:07, Woland wrote:
If anyone thinks that I advocated no taxes at all, she is mistaken.


Peace out.

Woland


Critter's a dude, not a 'she' Smile
And, apparently, Critter talks about himself in the third person now...

I interpreted this:
Quote:
the power to tax is the power to destroy.

as being against taxation itself. If I have misinterpreted then I apologize. Please clarify your intent with this quote so I understand better?

PS:(GDW is against government, which would include taxation, so I am still partially right. Yay for me.)
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4826 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 12:51, Dannydoyle wrote:
Who on this board has ever advocated no taxes at all? I certainly did not.


:bg:

Didn't you say, referring to the health bill, " . . . I simply do not believe that I should be forced to do so at the point of a gun, which effectively ANY government mandate does."

Which you followed with:
"We need to pay taxes, we need to have police, fire, and garbage, roads, and all sorts of government services that we must simply pay for."

SO, I imagine you agree that we are "forced to [pay for these] at the point of a gun," and you just think it is justified to do it for these services?

Correct me if I am wrong, I am being sincere in asking.

I'm guessing you were trying to clarify with this:
"To extend the idea of GENERAL WELFARE to mean that we force some to pay for others health care is not a RIGHT. I mean can we dictate whether they are allowed to smoke or drink or take drugs? Really it comes to being forced to pay for others behavior. I think we should not, and as I said it is not in the constitution either."

Is not paying for police and the judicial system also paying for the behaviours of others? I mean, I would think it is even more so than health care, because, even though there are many ailments that are the result of one's own actions, many simply are not, where as with criminal activity, it is ALL the result of the behaviours of others.

I guess you are paying for the PROTECTION from the behaviours of those others, but then why not apply that to health care, at least in a limited sense, to contagious afflictions? That is, couldn't you justify paying taxes to "protect" you from the actions of those who are contagious? Government provided health care to those who are contagious so as to protect the rest of use from them spreading their illness to us.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4826 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 09:02, critter wrote:
I wonder... without taxes, who would maintain the roads, sewers, and water supplies? Corporations? Are we to replace government with unregulated corporations? Didn't they call that Feudalism?

If one is entitled to property without protection then punishment is out of the question. If someone violates someone else's person or property then the only way to punish them is for someone else to violate that persons person or property.
The point of a democracy is to ensure that people whom the general public has agreed to trust with the position are the only ones making those decisions. The decision is made when you cast your vote.

The system of private security which GDW has proposed in the past assures that only the wealthy are entitled to personal safety.


First off, roads in particular, WERE run privately when they first came about. Also, that was not what feudalism was.

As for saying such a system would result in only the rich having justice, that is just as fallacious as saying only the rich can eat. Look at countries like jamaica, where there is very distinctly two classes. Those who live in mansions, and those who live in shacks. Huge disparity, and yet, nearly EVERYONE there has a cell phone, with Internet service on it.

The point is that any significantly unregulated industry will lead producers to strive to make a product affordable to as many customers as possible. The more a product is needed by EVERYONE, the more affordable it will become because there is such a HUGE market for it. This means many companies will want to be involved, and they will all be striving to get as much of the market as they can. This means the poor as well as the rich. Why do you think fast food is so *** prevalent and cheap?

AND, as Lobo pointed out, their will always be people who will "[turn] down good 6-figure salaries out of law school to do something they believed in."
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4826 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 13:43, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 13:29, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 23:56, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
OK. GDW, I'll bite. What's the fair market value of justice? If we lived in a libertarian world and you took my car, how much should I pay for justice? And if you bought more, does this mean you can keep my car?


Just like anything else, the "fair market value" would be determined by what people are willing and able to pay. As for "paying more" how would hat allow a thief to keep what they stole? Also, what you describe is rather similar to much of what we have now. That is, those who can afford better and more lawyers can use hat to their advantage. Even in a criminal case, what of the suspect who simply can't afford their own lawyer, and ends up with a hack defence attorney provided by the state?


I couldn't disagree more. Everyone has equal access to a court of law. We are forbidden from picking our own judges and we are all bound by the same laws. The lawyer is a service which we have the discretion to buy, but as you note in many circumstances, we have the right to a lawyer even if we cannot or do not pay. The lawyer may or may not be a "hack" whether we pay for the service or not.

Are you claiming that laws and judges are commodities comparable to phones? Should we be able to buy the laws we wish to follow? Buy the judges we want to hear our cases?

John


Yes and no. I advocate for a society in which there essentially is no "public" property. Any "property" you set foot on would be owned by someone, so, just like entering someone else's home, their house, their rules. You agree to said rules when you enter their home. You don't want to agree to those terms, you don't go to their home.

In situations where we are dealing with contracts between individuals, adjudicators would be agreed upon within the contract. So, you would be choosing the "judge" you agreed upon.

In cases where no contract is written, like someone breaks into your home, well, again, as mentioned above, your home, your rules, they agree to those rules by entering your home. The same has how, if someone breaks into your house now, you have every right to defend yourself and your property. So, you would be certainly choosing your own "judge" then.

A for those who don't have their own homes, or are assaulted/robbed on someone else's property, then the perpetrator would be subject to rules there. Similarly, there would still be a market for personal insurance. It would clearly be in the best interest of insuring companies to find, and hold accountable those responsible for injury or theft, the same as they do with car accidents, otherwise they would always be paying coverage out of pocket.

Also, given that companies like this would not have a government to cozy up with, they would not be able to virtually control any potential competition through regulation as they can now, so there would be plenty of competition to encourage them to be far more accommodating than most insurance companies are now.

To see something similar in action even now, all you have to do is call your phone/cable provider, and comment about an offer their competition is making. Most will be fairly quick to match it t keep your business. You don't often find much comparable to that in insurance.

That's not to say the cable/phone industry doesn't control their own competition as well. There's a reason you usually only have two or so major "local" providers in any given area.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
HerbLarry
View Profile
Special user
Poof!
731 Posts

Profile of HerbLarry
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 13:36, kcg5 wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 09:35, HerbLarry wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 15:28, kcg5 wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-15 14:41, HerbLarry wrote:
Quote:
balducci wrote:
You realize that pregnant women can and have been denied health insurance due to the preexisting condition of a pregnancy, right? You're fine with that?

Or that hazardous occupations like police office and fireman can also be used as preexisting conditions for denial of health insurance, right? You're fine with that too?


Yes & Yes.



more evidence of your constant jerkyness.


You can sit on it and spin till it bores a hole in what most people would be called a brain. Of course that wouldn't be long due to the location of the brain.



Herbby!!! Once again, I must remind you the adults are talking.


And I'll remind you that your total brain output is that of a wet soapdish.
You know why don't act naive.
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
As for saying such a system would result in only the rich having justice, that is just as fallacious as saying only the rich can eat.


Fallacious? Only the rich being able to eat? Really? I need only to glance at the history of Ireland or France to see examples of "only the rich" being able to eat.
Even in my own personal experience, there was a time when I was 125 lbs on a 6'2" frame because the only thing I could get to eat was free white bread from the church with stolen ketchup packets on it. Believe me, this was not by choice.

In our hypothetical anarchy:
If someone loses their job through no fault of their own, either from reduced demand or disability, and there is no government system in place to help them, then how do you expect them to pay for their private policemen and happy meals?
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Critter,

1) I used "she" as a nonspecific pronoun. Most people use "he" and some people use "he or she." I thought that the use of the unusual "she" would get your attention. I see that it did.

2) The statement that the power to tax is the power to destroy comes from Chief Justice John Marshall, and should not be interpreted as a blanket condemnation of any or all forms of taxation. My purpose in mentioning it was to emphasize the seriousness of the power to tax. A tax is not a user fee, it is not a voluntary contribution, it is taken from you by the government under the threat of imprisonment or worse.

Woland
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 15:06, Woland wrote:
Critter,

1) I used "she" as a nonspecific pronoun. Most people use "he" and some people use "he or she." I thought that the use of the unusual "she" would get your attention. I see that it did.



Not a problem. I wasn't taking offense, only pointing out that I noticed it. Hence, the winkey.

Quote:
2) The statement that the power to tax is the power to destroy comes from Chief Justice John Marshall, and should not be interpreted as a blanket condemnation of any or all forms of taxation. My purpose in mentioning it was to emphasize the seriousness of the power to tax. A tax is not a user fee, it is not a voluntary contribution, it is taken from you by the government under the threat of imprisonment or worse.

Woland


Understood. Thank you for clarifying.

One thing I will say in defense of your position is that I do think that it's ridiculous that my Mom's ex was usually out in two months for every repetitious event of domestic violence, whereas people often die in prison for tax evasion.
In my opinion, physical harm should be considered more serious than theft.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5129 Posts

Profile of landmark
Gdw said: "I advocate for a society in which there essentially is no "public" property. Any "property" you set foot on would be owned by someone, . . ."


Sorry but I find that notion absolutely nightmarish.

I don't even really feel like arguing it, because it seems so self-evident to me; I think there is a lot of good logic on this board, but we disagree a lot about what set of axioms we're going to start with.

Who gets the property? Who doesn't? Are the lucky ones those that can get to enclose the meadows?

They hang the man, and flog the woman,
That steals the goose from off the common;
But let the greater villain loose,
That steals the common from the goose.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4826 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 15:03, critter wrote:
Quote:
As for saying such a system would result in only the rich having justice, that is just as fallacious as saying only the rich can eat.


Fallacious? Only the rich being able to eat? Really? I need only to glance at the history of Ireland or France to see examples of "only the rich" being able to eat.
Even in my own personal experience, there was a time when I was 125 lbs on a 6'2" frame because the only thing I could get to eat was free white bread from the church with stolen ketchup packets on it. Believe me, this was not by choice.

In our hypothetical anarchy:
If someone loses their job through no fault of their own, either from reduced demand or disability, and there is no government system in place to help them, then how do you expect them to pay for their private policemen and happy meals?


First off, both of your examples are under systems of "rulers." Also, this points out something else: In your time of living on bread and ketchup, what did you need more, a good meal, or a court system? If the government should be providing "protection" as a necessity, then surely they should be providing food. What could be more of a necessity than food and water? And yet we are left to fend for our selves when it comes to them.

As for your latter question, first, how are people in the worst of such conditions doing now with the government? Ask a homeless person how they feel about how the police help them. You are describing things that happen NOW. That bing said, again, as lobo said, there are plenty of people willing to help because it's what they believe in. And, unlike a government, they don't have to deal with anywhere NEAR the same amount of bureaucracy and waste as found in government programs, so they would be MUCH better at helping. Also, such programs would have more direct feed back on what works with helping people get back on their feet, and they don't have to go through lengthy slow, reform processes, during which any attempt at "reform" is rehashed and watered down with compromises to the point of accomplishing nothing like when the government attempts to make changes in their programs. Private charities can adapt far more quickly to what works than any government ever can, or will.

Also, speaking of government waste and pointless regulations, the costs of these are always passed onto the customer.

Let's look at one industry, and eliminate only one of the costs government imposes. In toronto, and I believe it is similar in new york, a taxi license is $250 000. A quarter million. Just to operate a taxi business. You'll notice no one owns the taxi they drive. They are all owned by the big companies that can afford the licence. Now, how much do you think that quarter mill affects your fare? How much does the driver get out of that fare?

Take away the government licensing fee, and then the individual drivers could afford to operate on their own. They would make more money for themselves, and there would be more competition as well.

You're probably thinking about how we know if the taxi companies would be reliable without a "government licence." Well, first off, what does the licence do any ways? Really, it only prevents smaller companies from entering the market and competing. It acts only as a way for the big guys to control the market.
As far as assuring "quality" without such a licence, if that's important to customers, then there will be a demand in the market for independent reviewers. There also wouldn't be just one centralized one like under the government. You could refer to the reviewers you liked and trusted.
People already do this with restaurants and movies, and plenty of other services. You can find reviews for almost anything. And you certainly get far more information from these reviewers than you do from government "pass" "conditional" and "fail" type ratings you get now.
(Not sure how I is in the states. Here we have stickers in the windows that let you know if the restaurant passed inspections and such.)
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4826 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 15:56, landmark wrote:
Gdw said: "I advocate for a society in which there essentially is no "public" property. Any "property" you set foot on would be owned by someone, . . ."


Sorry but I find that notion absolutely nightmarish.

I don't even really feel like arguing it, because it seems so self-evident to me; I think there is a lot of good logic on this board, but we disagree a lot about what set of axioms we're going to start with.

Who gets the property? Who doesn't? Are the lucky ones those that can get to enclose the meadows?

They hang the man, and flog the woman,
That steals the goose from off the common;
But let the greater villain loose,
That steals the common from the goose.


There is a lot out there on this, from Lochian homesteading and beyond. How do you determine who "gets the property" now? The big difference is that you would acually OWN the land your home is on, as apposed to know where you are essentially renting it from the state, hence "property taxes" and the like.

The thing is, the idea of the "problem of the commons" is one that is created by the idea of "public property" to begin with.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 14:52, gdw wrote:
First off, roads in particular, WERE run privately when they first came about.


You have a reference for this?

John, who wishes he owned a piece of the original via appia.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 15:59, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 15:03, critter wrote:
Quote:
As for saying such a system would result in only the rich having justice, that is just as fallacious as saying only the rich can eat.


Fallacious? Only the rich being able to eat? Really? I need only to glance at the history of Ireland or France to see examples of "only the rich" being able to eat.
Even in my own personal experience, there was a time when I was 125 lbs on a 6'2" frame because the only thing I could get to eat was free white bread from the church with stolen ketchup packets on it. Believe me, this was not by choice.

In our hypothetical anarchy:
If someone loses their job through no fault of their own, either from reduced demand or disability, and there is no government system in place to help them, then how do you expect them to pay for their private policemen and happy meals?


First off, both of your examples are under systems of "rulers."


Still a valid point though.

Quote:
Also, this points out something else: In your time of living on bread and ketchup, what did you need more, a good meal, or a court system? If the government should be providing "protection" as a necessity, then surely they should be providing food. What could be more of a necessity than food and water? And yet we are left to fend for our selves when it comes to them.


I probably could have gotten food stamps if I'd had a permanent address to give them. And my ex-wife got food stamps and free psychiatric help because she was a loony. Thanks to that program, she made enough of a recovery to go out and get a job and become a productive member of society.

Quote:
As for your latter question, first, how are people in the worst of such conditions doing now with the government? Ask a homeless person how they feel about how the police help them.


I know far more people who are being helped by government disability programs than I do homeless people.

Quote:
In toronto, and I believe it is similar in new york, a taxi license is $250 000. A quarter million. Just to operate a taxi business. You'll notice no one owns the taxi they drive. They are all owned by the big companies that can afford the licence. Now, how much do you think that quarter mill affects your fare? How much does the driver get out of that fare?
You're probably thinking about how we know if the taxi companies would be reliable without a "government licence."


Actually, I was just curious as to who lobbied for the fee to begin with.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4826 Posts

Profile of gdw
"Still a valid point though."

But hen you say this:
"I probably could have gotten food stamps if I'd had a permanent address to give them."
Which is exactly my point. This is just one of the many things that hinder government programs. They are all run through this centralized system that is bogged down with so much bureaucracy. I went on assistance myself for a while. The amount of hoops and paperwork was ridiculous. Combined with pointless changes every now and then with who they calculated things based on what income you reported, there was a constant, and ever changing, "overpayment" amount.

For one example, they way they calculated "assistance" based on your reported income to begin with was convoluted. They would base the months "payment" on the previous months reporting. So, for starters, if your income changed, say you made more the following month, that means they gave you too much because they calculated based on the previous month. So, an "overpayment" balance was created. This would be deducted in instalments from following payments.
Then, when they would make a CHANGE to how they calculated things, things got screwy again.
At one point I went from being "employed" part time, to a "contract" position. Well, employed, they calculated based on the previous months income, but on contract they calculate based on the actual months reported income. Next thing you know, I own them several hundred dollars because they calculated the month based on the wrong one, in spite of me informing them of everything I was required to.

Honestly, they ONLY incentive I found to get off of assistance was dealing with bull like that. But there really is no inherent incentives in many of these programs to do this. Of course, I'm not saying people can't get back up while on government programs, nor denying their prevalence now. The fact that you know more people in government programs than homeless only shows the prevalence of government programs. Also, do you not think that many people don't give to charities, or give less than they would otherwise BECAUSE they pay taxes? Not just because it's less money to spend, but because hey think they are already "helping?"
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 15:59, gdw wrote:

Let's look at one industry, and eliminate only one of the costs government imposes. In toronto, and I believe it is similar in new york, a taxi license is $250 000. A quarter million. Just to operate a taxi business. You'll notice no one owns the taxi they drive. They are all owned by the big companies that can afford the licence. Now, how much do you think that quarter mill affects your fare? How much does the driver get out of that fare?

Take away the government licensing fee, and then the individual drivers could afford to operate on their own. They would make more money for themselves, and there would be more competition as well.

You're probably thinking about how we know if the taxi companies would be reliable without a "government licence." Well, first off, what does the licence do any ways? Really, it only prevents smaller companies from entering the market and competing. It acts only as a way for the big guys to control the market.

As of June, a taxi license in Toronto was only worth about $90,000. To start a business, $90,000 is a very small investment.

And the government is not getting that money. These taxi licenses sell in the open private market.

And the biggest single owner of taxi licenses in the city of Toronto only owns about 62 of them.

How many thousands of taxis do you think operate in Toronto? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that 62 is a very small fraction of the total number of licenses.

http://torontotaxiprices.blogspot.com/20......abs.html

So, basically, it appears that your post is factually incorrect from start to finish, at least where you are talking about the taxi business in Toronto.

But if you have a link to some article supporting what you said, please provide it and I will be happy to read the article.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
kcg5
View Profile
Inner circle
who wants four fried chickens and a coke
1868 Posts

Profile of kcg5
The water is clean and warm, Herbs!

"You can sit on it and spin till it bores a hole in what most people would be called a brain. Of course that wouldn't be long due to the location of the brain. ". Here's a real gem.
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!!!!!



"History will be kind to me, as I intend to write it"- Sir Winston Churchill
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 16:37, gdw wrote:
"Still a valid point though."

But


No but about it. You said that rich people eating while poor people starving was a logical fallacy. I showed historical precedent for that very event. That makes my point valid.

Quote:
hen you say this:


I'm not a hen Smile

Quote:
"I probably could have gotten food stamps if I'd had a permanent address to give them."
Which is exactly my point. This is just one of the many things that hinder government programs. They are all run through this centralized system that is bogged down with so much bureaucracy. I went on assistance myself for a while. The amount of hoops and paperwork was ridiculous. Combined with pointless changes every now and then with who they calculated things based on what income you reported, there was a constant, and ever changing, "overpayment" amount.


And yet, this permanent address problem could have been resolved if I'd known about housing programs. I can't blame the government for something that I didn't know.

Quote:
For one example, they way they calculated "assistance" based on your reported income to begin with was convoluted. They would base the months "payment" on the previous months reporting. So, for starters, if your income changed, say you made more the following month, that means they gave you too much because they calculated based on the previous month. So, an "overpayment" balance was created. This would be deducted in instalments from following payments.
Then, when they would make a CHANGE to how they calculated things, things got screwy again.
At one point I went from being "employed" part time, to a "contract" position. Well, employed, they calculated based on the previous months income, but on contract they calculate based on the actual months reported income. Next thing you know, I own them several hundred dollars because they calculated the month based on the wrong one, in spite of me informing them of everything I was required to.

Honestly, they ONLY incentive I found to get off of assistance was dealing with bull like that. But there really is no inherent incentives in many of these programs to do this. Of course, I'm not saying people can't get back up while on government programs, nor denying their prevalence now. The fact that you know more people in government programs than homeless only shows the prevalence of government programs. Also, do you not think that many people don't give to charities, or give less than they would otherwise BECAUSE they pay taxes? Not just because it's less money to spend, but because hey think they are already "helping?"


I also gave an example of someone who was helped by the programs. I know of others. My friend Sarah who was emotionally incapable of venturing out of her apartment without a trusted friend next to her had a case worker who would bring her groceries, and her rent was paid entirely by the government.
And every time she was hospitalized in the mental institution she also got free rent and food... dubious, that one.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
Oh, I forgot to answer the question about 'charitable contributions.'
I think many people do it out of a real desire to help, but I think far fewer would do it if there weren't tax deductions to be had.
It's also my opinion that many do it for PR reasons. I think it helps their public image, which increases their overall profits.
Whatever their reasons, I'd rather people help each other than not to.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4826 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 16:38, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 15:59, gdw wrote:

Let's look at one industry, and eliminate only one of the costs government imposes. In toronto, and I believe it is similar in new york, a taxi license is $250 000. A quarter million. Just to operate a taxi business. You'll notice no one owns the taxi they drive. They are all owned by the big companies that can afford the licence. Now, how much do you think that quarter mill affects your fare? How much does the driver get out of that fare?

Take away the government licensing fee, and then the individual drivers could afford to operate on their own. They would make more money for themselves, and there would be more competition as well.

You're probably thinking about how we know if the taxi companies would be reliable without a "government licence." Well, first off, what does the licence do any ways? Really, it only prevents smaller companies from entering the market and competing. It acts only as a way for the big guys to control the market.

As of June, a taxi license in Toronto was only worth about $90,000. To start a business, $90,000 is a very small investment.

And the government is not getting that money. These taxi licenses sell in the open private market.

And the biggest single owner of taxi licenses in the city of Toronto only owns about 62 of them.

How many thousands of taxis do you think operate in Toronto? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that 62 is a very small fraction of the total number of licenses.

http://torontotaxiprices.blogspot.com/20......abs.html

So, basically, it appears that your post is factually incorrect from start to finish, at least where you are talking about the taxi business in Toronto.

But if you have a link to some article supporting what you said, please provide it and I will be happy to read the article.


I may have been mixing up some of my cities, according to this article, Oakville is $250 000, and Toronto is $150 000:

http://www.driving.ca/story_print.html?i......sponsor=

More sources and other cities:

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/03......303.html


Also, did you read the whole article you linked to. I don't mean to sound condecending, I am honestly asking. there is plenty in there that is making the same point I was.

I did, at one point, refer to a "government licensing fee," which implied the money was going to the government, which is not the case with the "plates" referred to in the article. That was not the point of what I was saying though.
The point is the same, the government mandates these plates:

" As cabby Surinder Kumar puts it: "If you want to work, you have to play his game. You have no choice."

For Kumar, the plate game has been a losing proposition. He became a cabby after he lost his factory job when the company folded. Now, he finds himself trapped, forced to pay a huge percentage of his fares to lease a piece of tin riveted to the trunk of his car. "

And this is EXACTLY what I was saying.

More of how it is preventing competition, and even preventing people from trying to do some good:

http://jalopnik.com/5604559/how-one-good......true&s=i

If you want to read more on licensing and how it is a BS racket, look up OutLaw Hotdogs. It's an entertaining, and on going story.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20867 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Why do we always go down the completely undefendable anarchy position? How many people have to show you how many things to prove throughout history that it is not a position that can be remotely defended?

Critter, I still am waiting to have you show me where in the Constitution the SCOTUS has the power to do what you say it does.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » So what's the best income tax rate? (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..6..9..12..15..17~18~19~20~21~22~23 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.13 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL