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..18~19~20~21~22~23 [Next]
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4842 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 16:49, critter wrote:
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.


No, I was saying that claiming only the rich would have justice without a government is like claiming this. I was not saying that there are not people who can't afford food. I was saying that it was not this disparaging dichotomy of the fat and fed rich, and the starving poor, like you were saying there would be with justice with no state. Also, the point of saying this was under governing systems shows that what you fear happens WITH governments. Again, what you fear is happening NOW. How that makes it an argument AGAINST a different system is a bit of a stretch. That's not to say there would not be people who could not afford food if there was no government, just like you simply can't say that with a government there aren't people who can't afford food.

Hell, even with fully government funded services like school there are people who do not get provided with an education, and the service available to people is FAR from equal.

Quote:

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.


As I said before, I was NOT saying people CAN'T be helped. I'm saying they could be helped so much better.

Quote:
On 2010-12-17 16:53, critter wrote:
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.


As far as charity for tax deductions, Are you implying that it's good to take money from people, because then you can offer to take less if they donate to charities?

Of course, tax deductions wouldn't be a factor if there were no taxes to begin with.

"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."

Absolutely. However, I personally would MUCH rather see people help others, rather than being forced to, as Danny said elsewhere, "at the point of a gun" by government.

It's simply not charity if you are forced to do it. Just like mandatory "volunteer work" for credit in school now. Governments are the kings of oxymorons.
"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
GDW, okay, but you are posting news articles from 3 and 4 years ago. In case you missed it, there was a market crash / financial crisis since then. Those licenses might have been selling on the PRIVATE market in 2007-2008 for those huge sums, but they have crashed down in price since then.

I feel for Kumar, but he has other job options. The taxi industry is very competitive. He made his own decision to get into it. As I said before, $64,000 to start a business is not that big a deal (compared to, say, starting a restaurant or even a street food stand in Toronto). Maybe he should have taken a lower paying job, then saved up until he could afford to buy a license. Rather than rent a license as he decided to do. I'm just saying.

My points are, those licenses are NOT driving up the cost of taxi fares in the way you suggested, the license money is NOT going to the government, and they are not preventing smaller players from entering the market.

What the licenses are doing is keeping the taxi industry relatively safe and stable. I've never feared for my life when taking a taxi in Toronto. I cannot say the same about some other cities I have traveled to.
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.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4842 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 17:27, Dannydoyle wrote:
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.


Oh Danny, almost everything I have been arguing in this thread so far can be argued EXACTLY the same way without "anarchy" from a strict libertarian stand point. So, please, stop trying to dismiss any point I make just because I happen to think it could all be done without a government. If it can't, for example, be done without government providing police, courts, etc, then so be. EVERYTHING else I've said still holds, and I am arguing them the same way you have..
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2556 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
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.


You've already read it. Pretty much the whole first half of the section you mentioned.
I honestly don't have the energy to argue with someone who has consistently shown that they are willing to use lies and insults in place of facts and logic, and then blame the one they lied about.
Use that statement for your own self-aggrandizement all you want. Your opinion has lost all value to me.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
FYI, I had my number wrong above. S/B $90,000 or so, not $64,000.
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.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4842 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 17:33, balducci wrote:
GDW, okay, but you are posting news articles from 3 and 4 years ago. In case you missed it, there was a market crash / financial crisis since then. Those licenses might have been selling on the PRIVATE market in 2007-2008 for those huge sums, but they have crashed down in price since then.

I feel for Kumar, but he has other job options. The taxi industry is very competitive. He made his own decision to get into it. As I said before, $64,000 to start a business is not that big a deal (compared to, say, starting a restaurant or even a street food stand in Toronto). Maybe he should have taken a lower paying job, then saved up until he could afford to buy a license. Rather than rent a license as he decided to do. I'm just saying.

My points are, those licenses are NOT driving up the cost of taxi fares in the way you suggested, the license money is NOT going to the government, and they are not preventing smaller players from entering the market.

What the licenses are doing is keeping the taxi industry relatively safe and stable. I've never feared for my life when taking a taxi in Toronto. I cannot say the same about some other cities I have traveled to.


"My points are, those licenses are NOT driving up the cost of taxi fares in the way you suggested, the license money is NOT going to the government, and they are not preventing smaller players from entering the market."

Nothing you posted shows how they are NOT increasing the prices. I don't see how anyone could say licensing costs don't do that.

Also, I never said the money WAS going to the government. I may have inadvertently implied it with the one phrase as I mentioned in my previous response, but that changes nothing. Again, these permits are MANDATED by the GOVERNMENT. It doesn't matter who's selling them, you can't have a taxi without one.

And, as for starting up a business, buying ONE permit is a bit different from that, as shown in the vary article you linked to. The people mentioned in it do not have a business once they have one permit. It is a much more convoluted system than that, again, exactly as touched on in the article you linked to.

And how is this NOT preventing smaller players from entering the market? If it wasn't than the driver who's working his ass off to make a living driving someone else's cab could just go off on his own with his own car and do it. Kinda like the guy in the other article I linked to. How'd that work out for him? Oh that's right, the bigger taxi companies called in complaints about him. They went to big nanny state and said "waa, he's not playing by our rules, go stop him."
"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
4842 Posts

Profile of gdw
Also, as for starting up a business, comparing offering a contract service to starting a restaurant is a ridiculous comparison. What was the start up cost for anyone here working regularly as a magician?

Imagine what it would be like for Magicians if the government had similar licensing regulations for performers of birthday parties? We would ALL have to be working through an agency that could afford the permits, and we'd be getting screwed on our performance fees.
Seriously, how much do you think you'd be getting per show if magicians had to operate like taxi drivers? Prices for shows would have to go up, and there'd be a hell of a lot less people willing to pay for a birthday magician.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2556 Posts

Profile of critter
Re: Licensing fees-
I bought a city business license when I was doing street corner shows. $65. Made a great prop. Every time someone said "Get a job!" I got to point at it and say "I own the company!"
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4842 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 17:50, critter wrote:
Re: Licensing fees-
I bought a city business license when I was doing street corner shows. $65. Made a great prop. Every time someone said "Get a job!" I got to point at it and say "I own the company!"


Yeah, I know probably not your point, but again, big difference between that and the cost of a permit for a taxi. Also, what did you have to do to get said license? What exactly did it do? What was it's purpose besides permission from the state? How, in any way, shape, or form, did it keep things "safer" for your customers?
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2556 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
As far as charity for tax deductions, Are you implying that it's good to take money from people, because then you can offer to take less if they donate to charities?


Nope.

Quote:
"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."

Absolutely. However, I personally would MUCH rather see people help others, rather than being forced to, as Danny said elsewhere, "at the point of a gun" by government.


Nobody is 'forced at gunpoint' to contribute to a charity (unless you're talking about something else now.) Most big companies have a cost/benefit analyst to advise them and if the gain from the PR outweighs the loss from the contribution then they have the choice not to make said contribution.
I believe that the majority of those contributions would not be made if there weren't a tax benefit.

Quote:
Just like mandatory "volunteer work" for credit in school now.


You mean hands-on experience? Better than the alternative.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2556 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 17:52, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 17:50, critter wrote:
Re: Licensing fees-
I bought a city business license when I was doing street corner shows. $65. Made a great prop. Every time someone said "Get a job!" I got to point at it and say "I own the company!"


Yeah, I know probably not your point, but again, big difference between that and the cost of a permit for a taxi. Also, what did you have to do to get said license? What exactly did it do? What was it's purpose besides permission from the state? How, in any way, shape, or form, did it keep things "safer" for your customers?


Heck, it made it safer for me! Street performers get a lot of flack from people who think we're (should say 'they,' I haven't performed in quite some time) basically panhandling and not contributing to society. My permit was tangible evidence to those often scary individuals that I was contributing. It provided me with credibility.
And all of this was from the public.
As I've said before, I never got any flack from the coppers.
Displaying my license (mostly) kept people from thinking I was a bum and throwing crap at me.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4842 Posts

Profile of gdw
Critter, I was talking about being forced to support government "charity" via taxes.

Also, you say "nope" to implying that it's good to take money from people, because then you can offer take less if they donate to a charity, and then go onto to say you do not think the majority of companies would donate to charity without this very "incentive."

The governmant is literally saying " give us your money, now if you do X ee won't take as much."
"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
4842 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 18:05, critter wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 17:52, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 17:50, critter wrote:
Re: Licensing fees-
I bought a city business license when I was doing street corner shows. $65. Made a great prop. Every time someone said "Get a job!" I got to point at it and say "I own the company!"


Yeah, I know probably not your point, but again, big difference between that and the cost of a permit for a taxi. Also, what did you have to do to get said license? What exactly did it do? What was it's purpose besides permission from the state? How, in any way, shape, or form, did it keep things "safer" for your customers?


Heck, it made it safer for me! Street performers get a lot of flack from people who think we're (should say 'they,' I haven't performed in quite some time) basically panhandling and not contributing to society. My permit was tangible evidence to those often scary individuals that I was contributing. It provided me with credibility.
And all of this was from the public.
As I've said before, I never got any flack from the coppers.
Displaying my license (mostly) kept people from thinking I was a bum and throwing crap at me.

Ok, so is the government the only way to obtain this "credibility," or rather should they be the only way to buy credibility?
Also, if all it is is an object you buy, how does that give you any ACTUAL credibility? Is that really something you can "buy?"

"Look, I gave the government money, so I MUST be a legit performer."
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2556 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 18:18, gdw wrote:
Critter, I was talking about being forced to support government "charity" via taxes.

Also, you say "nope" to implying that it's good to take money from people, because then you can offer take less if they donate to a charity, and then go onto to say you do not think the majority of companies would donate to charity without this very "incentive."

The governmant is literally saying " give us your money, now if you do X ee won't take as much."


I retain my right to "nope." You asked if I was implying that it's ok, etc., etc., and I wasn't. Not with this statement.
What I was saying with this statement is just that the incentive exists, and I believe some people use said incentive.
Now, if you really want to know what I think outside of this one statement:
I believe that taxes are a necessity. We've gone back and forth enough on that for you to know my position and reasons by now, I shouldn't have to repeat them.
Given that taxes are a necessity (let's pretend I'm right about that for the sake of the following point,) then the incentive does provide a way for businesses to justify the expense of a charitable donation to their shareholders.
That's how I feel about it.
You didn't ask me that, though, you only asked if I was implying point A with sentence B, "and I weren't."
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2556 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 18:28, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 18:05, critter wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 17:52, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 17:50, critter wrote:
Re: Licensing fees-
I bought a city business license when I was doing street corner shows. $65. Made a great prop. Every time someone said "Get a job!" I got to point at it and say "I own the company!"


Yeah, I know probably not your point, but again, big difference between that and the cost of a permit for a taxi. Also, what did you have to do to get said license? What exactly did it do? What was it's purpose besides permission from the state? How, in any way, shape, or form, did it keep things "safer" for your customers?


Heck, it made it safer for me! Street performers get a lot of flack from people who think we're (should say 'they,' I haven't performed in quite some time) basically panhandling and not contributing to society. My permit was tangible evidence to those often scary individuals that I was contributing. It provided me with credibility.
And all of this was from the public.
As I've said before, I never got any flack from the coppers.
Displaying my license (mostly) kept people from thinking I was a bum and throwing crap at me.

Ok, so is the government the only way to obtain this "credibility," or rather should they be the only way to buy credibility?
Also, if all it is is an object you buy, how does that give you any ACTUAL credibility? Is that really something you can "buy?"

"Look, I gave the government money, so I MUST be a legit performer."


I reckon that for a crowd to make any call on my "actual credibility" they first have to be willing to stick around long enough to find out. The piece of paper gives the skeptics a reason to give it a shot.
Just like even if a bank is the best bank in the world, I'm not walking in unless they have that FDIC insured sticker.

In addition, the act of paying the fee to get the piece of paper does imply a degree of responsibility in my business dealings.
I'm using a public sidewalk, and my fee helps to maintain that sidewalk.
That's an indication of at least a minimum of moral credibility, if nothing else.

More important than anything else, though, is the tangible result: Piece of paper= less *** thrown at me.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4842 Posts

Profile of gdw
Great, now we're getting somewhere. As I said, I'm not opposed to standards, oraccreditation. You've made a case for the benefits therein, and I agree with you.

So, the question now is, why should the government be the sole one setting this standard? Better yet, why should they be the one MANDATING, and enforcing it?

Basically, I see why it is beneficial to you to choose to get the permit. Now, should others be free to disagree? Should other performers be free to choose NOT to get the permit, and maybe loose some spectators as a result? Also, should spectators be free to choose to watch an unlicensed performer if they choose? Do you support the use of force against these people?
"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
4842 Posts

Profile of gdw
Obviously the public sidewalk thing is a point I would sort of disagree with. Sort of because on a private street of course you would still be expected to pay to use it. Of course you wouldn't be forced to via taxes.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2556 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 19:12, gdw wrote:
Great, now we're getting somewhere. As I said, I'm not opposed to standards, oraccreditation. You've made a case for the benefits therein, and I agree with you.

So, the question now is, why should the government be the sole one setting this standard? Better yet, why should they be the one MANDATING, and enforcing it?

Basically, I see why it is beneficial to you to choose to get the permit. Now, should others be free to disagree? Should other performers be free to choose NOT to get the permit, and maybe loose some spectators as a result? Also, should spectators be free to choose to watch an unlicensed performer if they choose? Do you support the use of force against these people?


Technically, I believe that they are free to disagree. Though this would be better addressed by someone with more legal expertise than me. There seems to be a great deal of debate on the actual legality of unlicensed busking, and it probably varies by state (and certainly by country,) so I don't know for sure.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
Steve_Mollett
View Profile
Inner circle
Eh, so I've made
3006 Posts

Profile of Steve_Mollett
Quote:
. . . I simply do not believe that I should be forced to do so at the point of a gun,


Hmm...isn't that how the police make people behave...?
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
- Albert Camus
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4842 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 19:20, critter wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 19:12, gdw wrote:
Great, now we're getting somewhere. As I said, I'm not opposed to standards, oraccreditation. You've made a case for the benefits therein, and I agree with you.

So, the question now is, why should the government be the sole one setting this standard? Better yet, why should they be the one MANDATING, and enforcing it?

Basically, I see why it is beneficial to you to choose to get the permit. Now, should others be free to disagree? Should other performers be free to choose NOT to get the permit, and maybe loose some spectators as a result? Also, should spectators be free to choose to watch an unlicensed performer if they choose? Do you support the use of force against these people?


Technically, I believe that they are free to disagree. Though this would be better addressed by someone with more legal expertise than me. There seems to be a great deal of debate on the actual legality of unlicensed busking, and it probably varies by state (and certainly by country,) so I don't know for sure.


Well, seeing as how the busking is only an example, does that really make a difference to the principle? Even if it did, does that really make a difference to whether or not YOU support the use of force against those who disagree?
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
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..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 0.08 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