On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:47:38 GMT, Todd Brasseur
<nbrass@no-spam> wrote:
>John Carrick wrote:
>> [This post is far longer than it should be. I should have split it
>> into several parts. My apologies.]
[Remaining content read and then deleted.]
[1] Excuse me. Your delete key appears to be broken.
Otherwise, why would you send me a 351 line post in which perhaps ten
per cent was new material?
[2] As for your contention that government is too large, we shall have
to agree to differ.
Your position appears to me to be a highly selfish one.
Your concerns seem to be personal rather than more widely social.
[1] If I am not for myself, who will be?
That is Hillel's first question. I have the impression that it's your
touchstone...the Golden Rule of your personal philosophy.
[2] If I am only for myself, who am I?
That is Hillel's second question.
Either you ignore it completely, or you reserve the right to interpret
it in a highly self-interested fashion.
Your governments, local, regional, provincial, and federal did not
take office by means of armed insurrections. No dictators run our
city councils, legislatures, or Parliament. No armoured force stormed
onto Parliament Hill.
All of the bodies that legislated our present level of government
services were *elected*.
Your complaint that they tax too much and spend too much does not hold
water.
Year after year of free elections has brought about the present level
of taxation.
Does it not occur to you that a majority of people feel that the tax
system is *not* overly burdensome? That most successful Canadians
want to pay their way and to share their good fortune with the less
fortunate?
No, I guess not. You think that they elect these governments, because
they are masochistic, and want to suffer over-taxation.
"John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote in message
news:q9mbfvocqu36gukfmir83ssjhmbqskdo2r@no-spam
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:47:38 GMT, Todd Brasseur
> <nbrass@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >John Carrick wrote:
>
> >> [This post is far longer than it should be. I should have split it
> >> into several parts. My apologies.]
>
> [Remaining content read and then deleted.]
[ditto]
I still haven't seen you answer the original question of this thread: vis:
How much taxes is fair?
Cheers,
Jennifer
How can one be "overly selfish" with the product of one's own labor?
Simply because I don't think every lazy liberal bum "needs" something he
can't get on his own?
Well, I guess then, I'm "overly selfish" Eat your heart out.
".BitHead." <bithead@no-spam> wrote in message
news:gqtsevo58vcr5iat5c2vtl5fucqu9dula3@no-spam
> On 16 Jun 2003 14:47:54 -0700, david_l_simpson@no-spam (Dave
> Simpson) wrote:
>
> >John Carrick wrote:
> >
> >> If that is the case my perception of you two as overly selfish
> >> conservatives must be real.
> >
> > Are you even dishonest with yourself?
>
> If he was lying to himself, how would he know?
>
>
>
> ----
> _____________________________________________________________
> /BitHead's Place: Political commentary from the REAL world. /\
> / http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/ _/ /\
> /Bit's weekly commentaries also available internationally: / \/
> / http://www.rightpoint.ca/ \ /
> http://greysanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/index.asp /\
> ____________________________________________________________/ /
> ____________________________________________________________\/
> \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
How much taxes is fair?
I dunno, is our kids learnin?
Bit Head wrote:
> If he was lying to himself, how would he know?
Ah -- perhaps that explains his behavior, even if it doesn't excuse it.
Dave Simpson
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:37:23 GMT, John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam>
wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:13:27 GMT, "Tickle Mi"
><ticklish@no-spam> wrote:
>
>>Taxation, pretty much by definition, violates justice and is a style of
>>slavery. Only those who are comfortable being slaves (or profiting from
>>slaves) will be comfortable with taxation.
>
>What is this?
>
>You decided that the newsgroups were getting overly serious, and that
>we needed some comic relief?
>
>Your definition of taxation is the worst sort of bullshit.
Someone whose politics is so closely tied to other people's money may
be expected to respond as you have here.
>
>We remit taxes to governments at different levels so that they can
>carry out various activities on our behalf.
Your statement assumes a voluntary remission.
----
_____________________________________________________________
/BitHead's Place: Political commentary from the REAL world. /\
/ http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/ _/ /\
/Bit's weekly commentaries also available internationally: / \/
/ http://www.rightpoint.ca/ http://clik.to/bithead/ \ /
/ http://greysanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/index.asp /\
__________________________________________________________/ /
\ __________________________________________________________\/
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:31:16 -0600, "ztip guy"
<dont.spam.me@no-spam> wrote:
>> >I agree... no tax is fair other than a flat consumption tax... like the
>GST.
>>
>> Trouble with the GST was, and is, it's in addition to all tyhe rest of
>> the taxes.
>
>Yes, but it is far more equitable than the 13.5% tax, the Manufacturers
>Sales Tax, that it replaced. Further, inter alia, the GST also brought in
>taxation on the service industry which was previously free of federal taxes.
Agreed, but again, it would have been better had the other taxes been
removed.
----
_____________________________________________________________
/BitHead's Place: Political commentary from the REAL world. /\
/ http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/ _/ /\
/Bit's weekly commentaries also available internationally: / \/
/ http://www.rightpoint.ca/ http://clik.to/bithead/ \ /
/ http://greysanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/index.asp /\
__________________________________________________________/ /
\ __________________________________________________________\/
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \