It comes from taxation. If we abolish taxation, there will be no public
funds. If you disagree, name the primary sourse of income.
"Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Cd1Ia.225361$3C2.6694433@no-spam
>
> "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:vkPHa.219503$3C2.6570963@no-spam
> > The money the government uses for capital projects and other expenses?
>
> We know where it comes from. The proposal under discussion is the
abolition
> (or severe curtailment) of one source: taxation. Why are you being so
silly?
>
> > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:QexHa.213310$3C2.6454784@no-spam
> > > Where what comes from?
> > >
> > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:LzwHa.242116$Vi5.6447489@no-spam
> > > > Then where do you think it comes from?
> > > >
> > > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:mksHa.211863$3C2.6378889@no-spam
> > > > > Probably not. Why? Who is suggesting that?
> > > > >
> > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:qXrHa.211739$3C2.6375949@no-spam
> > > > > > Do you believe that the government could remain viable by
> producing
> > > all
> > > > > its
> > > > > > money from the mint?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:vKcHa.208858$ro6.5669313@no-spam
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:%fbHa.208427$ro6.5639555@no-spam
> > > > > > > > So there are ways to pay more or less tax. That proves
> nothing.
> > > > The
> > > > > > > > government doesn't get all its money from the mint, you
know.
> > The
> > > > > > > > residential tax may not be major, but the corporate tax is.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry, I do not know what you are yammering about now.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:4iRGa.200054$ro6.5496919@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > In order to fully explain it, you would first need a good
> > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > what money is and how it is created in our system. To make
> it
> > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > obvious, phone a financial advisor (there are lots in the
> > phone
> > > > > book)
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > say that you have just inherited $100,000. Listen
carefully
> to
> > > > what
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > advisor recommends you do - and why he recommends it. You
> will
> > > > soon
> > > > > > > learn
> > > > > > > > > that taxation 'guides' people's actions, and that is the
> > primary
> > > > > > > purpose.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The stuff about "raising revenue" is merely to fool the
> > > innocent.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > news:%fPGa.227256$Vi5.6085920@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > About the controlling of people, I mean.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > news:xMcGa.207997$Vi5.5777397@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > Well... if some people truly don't want them, then how
> > > > necessary
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > really be?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > > news:OZbGa.179020$ro6.5200805@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > > That is riduculous. Explain why it is so?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Änönÿmöüs Cöwärd" <anonymous@no-spam> wrote in
> > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > >
news:osbGa.180182$3C2.5769850@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure. Or just pay as you go. If these services are
> (as
> > > you
> > > > > > say)
> > > > > > > > > > > necessary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and desirable, then there ought not to be any
> > difficulty
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > problem ones are those that some people think
other
> > > people
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > forced
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to pay for, even though they are not wanted. All
> > things
> > > > > > > > considered,
> > > > > > > > > > we'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > probably all be a lot further ahead if the
> government
> > > did
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > force
> > > > > > > > > > > > > dissidents to pay for those.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But then, all of this ignores the fact that
taxation
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > raising revenue to pay for things - it is about
> > > > controlling
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > population.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in
> message
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> news:iT9Ga.178194$ro6.5164273@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So then, a checklist of what services you want,
> and
> > > you
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > track of this somehow? Maybe a smartcard or
> > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "»Tylêr Dûrdên«" <t_durdre@no-spam>
> wrote
> > in
> > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > news:_n9Ga.179448$3C2.5730872@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.bcrevolution.ca/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in
> > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > news:OS8Ga.206530$Vi5.5709273@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is certain amount that must be paid.
> The
> > > > people
> > > > > > > > decide
> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spent on, but it must be paid. It is just
one
> > > > > > suggestion.
> > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > oh,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > did
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mind paying so much.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, perhaps people could set a
contribution
> > that
> > > > > > > everyone
> > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make? Still, if you decided how much to pay
> > many
> > > > > people
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > defraud
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > system by paying nothing and then everyone
> else
> > > > would
> > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people (who paid nothing) and their benefit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps we need a law that if people pay a
> certain
> > > > > amount
> > > > > > > of,
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > example,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > property tax for police, fire and water... the
> > > amount
> > > > > > > > collected
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > none
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than is needed? With that in place I have
> > > little
> > > > > > doubt
> > > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gladly pay for such services, so it is hardly
> > > > necessary
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > threaten
> > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay. You don't pay, you don't get the service.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another example is gas tax: It makes sense to
> > charge
> > > a
> > > > > > small
> > > > > > > > fee
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > price of building and maintaining highways,
but
> > when
> > > > > > you're
> > > > > > > > > paying
> > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > five times the amount needed (feds alone
collect
> > 7.7
> > > > > > > billion),
> > > > > > > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not right. The government can also charge
> > commercial
> > > > > users
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > public
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > roadways for the use thereof, and the amount
of
> > tax
> > > > > would
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pennies
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > litre, like it is in the US.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is another matter entirely for them to take
> > > > personal
> > > > > > > income
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > spend
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on services that people don't need or want,
and
> no
> > > > > amount
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > justification
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will change the fact that you need permission
of
> > the
> > > > > owner
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > take
> > > > > > > > > > > > > his/her
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > property.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We need accountability, fairness and
fundamental
> > > > > > principles
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > dealing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with "tax issues". We don't have that now -
not
> by
> > a
> > > > > > > longshot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "»Tylêr Dûrdên«"
<t_durdre@no-spam>
> > > wrote
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > news:RLTFa.174635$3C2.5628177@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.bcrevolution.ca/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote
> in
> > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > news:A7TFa.200483$Vi5.5584707@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is fully coherent. The government
sets
> a
> > > tax
> > > > > > rate
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > money
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MUST
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay to public works. The people decide
> > where
> > > > this
> > > > > > > money
> > > > > > > > > > goes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How can people decide where the money
goes,
> > when
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > government
> > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *taken
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it* for "public works"? What if 'the
people'
> > > want
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > private
> > > > > > > > > > > > company
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the "public works"? Can the govnerment
keep
> > > taking
> > > > > > money
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is coherent eh? Nice try.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By making it law that you must make a
> > > > contribution
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > public
> > > > > > > > > > > > > works.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whether you want it or not. Whether the
> price
> > is
> > > > > fair
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Whether
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > want company A versus B or not. Good
grief!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would a service people need, require
> > > stealing
> > > > > > money
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is coherent eh? NOT!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > People don't like paying taxes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hahaha... You said you didn't mind paying
33
> > > > > percent,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > paying 95 percent. Which answer is it now?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a lot of people who think the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > government can just pay for things, out
of
> > > > pocket,
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > income.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > greedy people would just rely on others
to
> > pay
> > > > for
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > school.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is exactly what taxes do!!!!!!!!
Force
> > > OTHERS
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > service.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You want the government looking after food
> > sales
> > > > > too?
> > > > > > > Then
> > > > > > > > > > 'the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > rich'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pay for us all to eat steak every day.
Sound
> > > fair?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am talking about medicare. If I was
> > talking
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > > blue
> > > > > > > > > > > cross,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be pure nonsense. Medicare is a sort of
> > > > > insurance,
> > > > > > > paid
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > taxes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is cheap but covers most of the common
> > > > procedures
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > emergency
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ones.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Great... so there should be no problem
> making
> > it
> > > > > > > > consentual.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They don't charge for them.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >To do so would be rather... towards the
> slant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of a corporate republic.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The government is not a private entity.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WHAT? Yes they are: they are corporations
or
> > > aka.
> > > > > > Roman
> > > > > > > > > Clubs
> > > > > > > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > law.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That means they have no more rights than
you
> > or
> > > I,
> > > > > so
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > i
> > > > > > > > > > can't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > steal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my neighbours in order to set up my very
own
> > > > "public
> > > > > > > > works"
> > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > i
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everyones lawn (whether they have one or
> not)
> > > then
> > > > > > > > > government
> > > > > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > right either. Understand? Duh!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not a problem for individuals
(save
> > for
> > > > > > theives)
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem for governments either. Boy have
you
> > > ever
> > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > > > brainwashed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > No
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wonder the government knows it can keep
> > shi##ing
> > > > on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > public
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > won't do anything but cry in their beer
for
> a
> > > day
> > > > or
> > > > > > > > two....
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pathetic!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They cannot be expected to act as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one. They don't charge user fees for
> > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > > > > > (to
> > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pain in the ass and the poor would end
up
> > > paying
> > > > > > much
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > income,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sum would be less significant to the
> rich -
> > > thus
> > > > > > > > > > capitalisim)
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > charge for services.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Governments don't charge for services?
> > Planning
> > > > any
> > > > > > > trips
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > BC?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hahahaha
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe they would charge more if they
didn't
> > > steal
> > > > > > money
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "free" services they provide. Too funny!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >They do not stockpile money and are not
> > > > > particularily
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wary about taking on debt.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why should they, when they have people
like
> > you
> > > > > under
> > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ok
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > steal as much as they need to pay for
> > > everything?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They are elected and have the right to
> > govern.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They have a right to govern by consent and
> by
> > > > > > principle
> > > > > > > > > > only....
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course you believe that might makes right?
> > That
> > > it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > ok
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > minority
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > take away the rights of a majority, or
vise
> > > versa?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If a private entity cannot create
anything
> > of
> > > > > value,
> > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do so - but people cannot possibly
expect
> to
> > > > > collect
> > > > > > > > > returns
> > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > government in services if they intend to
> pay
> > > it
> > > > > > either
> > > > > > > > > > nothing
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > enough.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you understand the process of going
> to
> > a
> > > > > store
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > buying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > food...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not understand the way government provides
> > > > services?
> > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fascinating...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At any rate: you either believe in
> fundamental
> > > > > > > principles
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > justice
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not... Clearly you don't.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "»Tylêr Dûrdên«"
> > <t_durdre@no-spam>
> > > > > wrote
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > news:pjRFa.200098$Vi5.5546325@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.bcrevolution.ca/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam>
> wrote
> > > in
> > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > news:JMPFa.172234$ro6.5003843@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that the government is
> > perfectly
> > > > > > > justified
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dollecting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > forced
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tax, HOWEVER I do not believe that
> they
> > > > should
> > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > > > > > administration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fees
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such ridiculous levels or spend the
> > money
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > public
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > consent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is incoherent. The idea of the
> > > government
> > > > > > using
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > force,
> > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > asking
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > consent on where to spend the money is
> > > > nonsense.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How does a government or individual
> aquire
> > > the
> > > > > > right
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > force
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [non-consent] to take your property?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps, people could pay what they
> want
> > > and
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > used
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fullest potential; if not enough tax
> was
> > > > paid
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > schools
> > > > > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wouldn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > built,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you're saying very few people are
> > willing
> > > > to
> > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > build
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schools
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > educate their children? What lead you
to
> > > this
> > > > > > > > > conclusion?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the medical insurance would cover
less
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > utilities
> > > > > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wouldn't be maintained.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you even know how insurance
companies
> > > make
> > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > money?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Remember, the government cannot
> produce
> > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Come on.... They provide services,
which
> > > have
> > > > a
> > > > > > > value.
> > > > > > > > > > They
> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > control
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > money/banks, which create more items
of
> > > value
> > > > > > > through
> > > > > > > > > > > > > investment.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If a person can not create "anything
of
>
> > > value"
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > lawfully
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > steal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > their neighbour?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "»Tylêr Dûrdên«"
> > > > <t_durdre@no-spam>
> > > > > > > wrote
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > news:QYxFa.195618$Vi5.5426265@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.bcrevolution.ca/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania"
<cmomot@no-spam>
> > > wrote
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > news:XNxFa.195506$Vi5.5422690@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people just take the
> government
> > > > > > services
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > granted.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hardly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > socialist; not everything is
taken
> > > away.
> > > > > > > > > Socialist
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > 95%
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > taxes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 33.33r%
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avg. is not that bad.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your comments are a perfect
> > illustration
> > > > of
> > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > *principle*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > needed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just society. You say it is ok for
> the
> > > > > > > government
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > steal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > third
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pie, while others think it should
> > steal
> > > 95
> > > > > > > > percent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Solution: You give your one third,
> > your
> > > > > > > neighbour
> > > > > > > > > > gives
> > > > > > > > > > > 95
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > percent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > consent) and the govenrment stays
> > within
> > > > the
> > > > > > > law.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > neighbour
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may convince more people to his
way
> of
> > > > > > thinking
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > force
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gunpoint)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to fork over the rest.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't think of any govenrment
> > service
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > > > > theft
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > private
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > property to support it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "»Tylêr Dûrdên«"
> > > > > > <t_durdre@no-spam>
> > > > > > > > > wrote
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > news:sLxFa.168786$ro6.4912327@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.bcrevolution.ca/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania"
> > <cmomot@no-spam>
> > > > > wrote
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > news:XxxFa.195349$Vi5.5416346@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoretically, tax is the
> > > > Government's
> > > > > > sole
> > > > > > > > > form
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > revenue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > generally produces nothing
of
> > > value,
> > > > > it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > required
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > services
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VIA
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tax.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Government is more importantly
> > > > REQUIRED
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > obey
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > law.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meaning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > countries where property is a
> > right
> > > it
> > > > > > needs
> > > > > > > > > > consent
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > take
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > property.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > organizations have no problem
> with
> > > > this,
> > > > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > simply
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > offer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > service
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and hope people need it enough
> to
> > > > > > willingly
> > > > > > > > pay
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know why this is so
hard
> > for
> > > > > > > > socialists
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comprehend,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seem
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to have trouble with just
> > principles
> > > > of
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > kind.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "»Tylêr Dûrdên«"
> > > > > > > > <t_durdre@no-spam>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
news:4duFa.167401$ro6.4855192@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "The State of Alberta"
> > > > > > > > > > > > <freealberta@no-spam>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> news:4ZbFa.189518$Vi5.5212115@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "»Tylêr Dûrdên«"
> > > > > > > > > > <t_durdre@no-spam>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > news:M1TEa.181255$Vi5.5042020@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe. I'm guessing
the
> > > people
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chicken
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shi#
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > government
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aggression as the
> > > mousehearts
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > Canada.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They will demand to keep
> > their
> > > > > > status
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > tax
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > haven -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rich
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people of Toronto will
let
> > > them
> > > > > > keep,
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > profit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The anti tax idea is
> > always
> > > > > good,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bound
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > law
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as tight as that of
> > Belize.
> > > > > Belize
> > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > outlawed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tax,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > court in their country
> > hear
> > > > such
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > issue,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > meaning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > foreign
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agencies
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can't petition courts
> for
> > > tax
> > > > > > > > purposes..
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That would be sweet, but
> > > > > impossible.
> > > > > > > > > Taxes
> > > > > > > > > > > suck
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ultimately
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > necessary.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is that? Most people
> > manage
> > > to
> > > > > run
> > > > > > > > > > services
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stealing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > potential customers don't
> > they?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if it was somehow
> > > "ultimately
> > > > > > > > > necessary"
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > steal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > violation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the fundamental
> principles
> > of
> > > > > > justice
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > steal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > property
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [labour]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we'd have to make do
> without.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >If only the politicians
> paid
> > > for
> > > > by
> > > > > > > > Toronto
> > > > > > > > > > > knew
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > term
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "responsibility".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The are supposed to know
> > > > > "fundamental
> > > > > > > > > > principles
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > justice",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > protect us sufficiently.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But they don't, and
that's
> > why
> > > > > > Alberta
> > > > > > > > > must
> > > > > > > > > > > > > secede.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Canada
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change so there's no
point
> > in
> > > > > hoping
> > > > > > > > > > > otherwise.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BC and Alberta would make
a
> > > great
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > country,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > preserved our liberties in
a
> > > > better
> > > > > > form
> > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Canada
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Act
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1982].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magna Carta is a good
start,
> > so
> > > we
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > build
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ensure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > representative democracy
so
> > > > > minorities
> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > longer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > power
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > force
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > over majorities (in the
name
> > of
> > > > > > > > democracy).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can make our own
place
> > > where
> > > > > > taxes
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > illegal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm...that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > country
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > smell.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Be a good way to encourage
> > > > currency
> > > > > > > > > > investment,
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ride
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > burdensome dept.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ju0Ja.253249$ro6.6570458@no-spam
> Where do you think the money in the government pocket comes from?
I really do not care where it comes from. All I ask is that they do not
steal it or defraud anyone.
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Qt0Ja.251812$3C2.7289538@no-spam
> > > I really don't like it when people take a free ride on my work. This
is
> > why
> > > I advocate change.
> >
> > What work? What free ride on your work? You are imagining things.
>
> The work I do, to get money to buy things and pay for services with. If I
> pay into a pool from which everybody draws (and most pay into), those who
do
> not pay are basically taking money out of my pocket because they increase
> the burden on the provider and pool without contributing to it. They are
> taking a free ride.
I see. So, you are now demanding an immediate end to welfare payments to the
poor and disability pensions and all the rest?
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:vw0Ja.280455$Vi5.7320341@no-spam
> Not impossible, simply no good.
>
> You benefit from education, even if you are not being educated.
I benefit from my neighbour cleaning his yard and painting his house. I
benefit from the local grocer selling good quality food. I benefit from
people educating their kids properly, yes. Presumably, my neighbours also
benfit from my endeavors.
Do my neighbours owe me money because I painted my house and thereby raised
their property values? Do my neighbours owe me money because I got a proper
education for my kids?
You really need to sharpen your thinking skills.
> This is
> called an indirect benefit. In your end, these children have the chance
to
> grow up and be useful, doing things such as research and development, or
> being able to provide a service or commodity. This, in turn, helps you
> because these new things are made available to you and the old things
> continue to be.
We know how it works. That is what society is all about, isn't it? You have
to explain how that creates a financial obligation.
>Therefore, you should contribute rather than making me pull
> all the weight for something that helps you as well.
You have a rather high opinion of yourself. I suggest that I have
contributed much more to your well-being, and I have not been properly
compensated. You owe me money. Pay up.
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:seQIa.276417$Vi5.7224547@no-spam
>
> "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:diwIa.239727$3C2.7021329@no-spam
> >
> > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:VJvIa.240144$ro6.6320661@no-spam
> > > They mint money but they also burn almost as much old currency and
melt
> > the
> > > coins. This is why our currency is worth something. If money was
> leaves,
> > > it would cost a million of them to buy a loaf of bread. And if these
> > leaves
> > > were never taken out of circulation, there would be another equal crop
> > every
> > > year and eventually loaves of bread would cost 2 million, then 3, and
> then
> > > four, and so on. So the value of your leaves would decrease.
> >
> > You are mistaken. I recommend a beginners text on economics.
>
> Perhaps my numbers are a bit off, but are you denying that inflation can
> make a currency worthless?
I am telling you that you are wrong, that is not why our currency is worth
something.
> > > This applies to more conventional currency, as well. If the
government
> > > could jsut constantly mint and mint and mint until they had enough to
> pay
> > > for all the expendatures withoutany other income, your currency would
be
> > > worth that much less. The value would go to whoever minted the money,
> > that
> > > being the government.
> >
> > As I said previously, it is a question of balance.
>
> Are you not against them robbing you? They tax everybody that has money,
in
> this case, by making $1 worth less of the total.
Remind me to tell you the story of the two chickens. It's very educational.
> > > This is why counterfiet is such an issue: a counterfieter is actually
> > > stealing from everyone who posesses the currency being counterfieted.
> >
> > Does the same reasoning apply to the mint? If not, why not?
>
> Of course it does, as long as the mint makes more money than they destroy.
So, if the mint makes more currency than it destroys, then it is stealing
from people? Why isn't the mint arrested when they do that?
> As you may know, the Royal Canadian Mint also destroys old currency: bills
> are burned and coins are melted. A total of all this destroyed currency
is
> produced, and an amount only slightly greater is created anew. However,
if
> the mint creates less, they are giving us money (or rather, value). If
they
> create the same, it makes no difference. So you can put it to a common
> thing, e.g. the cost of living (Note: It doesn't really matter what
> variables are taken into account, as long as they don't change). Usually,
> inflation is reflected by that.
Again, you are mistaken. However, you are close to correct with some of what
you say. You do seem to have a better grasp of the material than most of the
idiot socialists here in the ng, so that's a point in your favor.
Ohhhhhh, I see. You are exempt from paying me for my contribution because
you value your juvenile drivel as highly as my sage advice.
Is that how it works?
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:0A0Ja.280502$Vi5.7321192@no-spam
> I am paying you in my own advice and insight. Part of my being in this
> newsgroup amounts to making posts that are intelligent and offer an
opinion.
> I consider this my responsibility.
>
> "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:ZmQIa.248059$3C2.7197158@no-spam
> >
> > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:K9QIa.247978$3C2.7193587@no-spam
> > > People pay for anything that benefits them. That is perfectly just.
> >
> > Sounds good to me. I have provided plenty of advice that benefits you,
> > whether you want it or not. You appear not to appreciate it, but
> (according
> > to you) that does not matter. Pay me.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:cgQIa.276430$Vi5.7224629@no-spam
> > > However, I would be interested to know just why you
> > > think income tax is about control?
> >
> > or the same reason that I think water is wet. Sheesh!
>
> Can you explain how? All it does is make people pay, and more if they own
> more.
Your assignment is to call an investment counsellor and ask what s/he would
recommend you; do if you suddenly came into a large sum of money. Then ask
why. I think you will quickly learn that taxation guides people's choices by
sapping their wealth if they make "wrong" choices.
In general, people will do what is necessary to reduce their tax burden, and
that is de facto control of people's choices. That is what taxation is all
about, and the "revenue raising" aspect is a bit of a con. In reality,
governemnt is stealing a portion of your labor, without actually forcing you
to labor at any one particular thing. Very clever, really.
Taxation is slavery.
> > > Do you think it is a way of trying to
> > > make people earn less money?
> >
> > What???? You really are incredibly stupid.
>
> If it was a means of incentive or control, what else could it be? I think
> you are severely mistaken if you think it could be anything else.
>
> Just out of curiosity, why do you never answer my question: What do you
> think income tax makes us do, in terms of controlling us?
Taxation coerces people to do things that they otherwise might not.
I am talking about able people, not those who have nothing to contribute.
People who can prove that they are not ABLE TO (different from currently)
produce any money to pay for these services.
"Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Yy5Ja.255724$3C2.7345232@no-spam
>
> "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:Qt0Ja.251812$3C2.7289538@no-spam
>
> > > > I really don't like it when people take a free ride on my work.
This
> is
> > > why
> > > > I advocate change.
> > >
> > > What work? What free ride on your work? You are imagining things.
> >
> > The work I do, to get money to buy things and pay for services with. If
I
> > pay into a pool from which everybody draws (and most pay into), those
who
> do
> > not pay are basically taking money out of my pocket because they
increase
> > the burden on the provider and pool without contributing to it. They
are
> > taking a free ride.
>
> I see. So, you are now demanding an immediate end to welfare payments to
the
> poor and disability pensions and all the rest?
>
>
>
>
Do you know?
"Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Yy5Ja.256458$ro6.6616919@no-spam
>
> "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:ju0Ja.253249$ro6.6570458@no-spam
> > Where do you think the money in the government pocket comes from?
>
> I really do not care where it comes from. All I ask is that they do not
> steal it or defraud anyone.
>
>
>
"Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Yy5Ja.256459$ro6.6616887@no-spam
>
> "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:vw0Ja.280455$Vi5.7320341@no-spam
> > Not impossible, simply no good.
> >
> > You benefit from education, even if you are not being educated.
>
> I benefit from my neighbour cleaning his yard and painting his house. I
> benefit from the local grocer selling good quality food. I benefit from
> people educating their kids properly, yes. Presumably, my neighbours also
> benfit from my endeavors.
>
> Do my neighbours owe me money because I painted my house and thereby
raised
> their property values? Do my neighbours owe me money because I got a
proper
> education for my kids?
You may possibly collect something from them, yes. I am sorry that the
concept seems barbaric because of your society's teachings. Also, you would
end up owing them the same if they did the same, so it would balance out if
your neighbours were good.
>
> You really need to sharpen your thinking skills.
>
>
> > This is
> > called an indirect benefit. In your end, these children have the chance
> to
> > grow up and be useful, doing things such as research and development, or
> > being able to provide a service or commodity. This, in turn, helps you
> > because these new things are made available to you and the old things
> > continue to be.
>
> We know how it works. That is what society is all about, isn't it? You
have
> to explain how that creates a financial obligation.
If you don't pull your weight in action, you pull it in finincial
compensation for the trouble you cause.
>
> >Therefore, you should contribute rather than making me pull
> > all the weight for something that helps you as well.
>
> You have a rather high opinion of yourself. I suggest that I have
> contributed much more to your well-being, and I have not been properly
> compensated. You owe me money. Pay up.
(8) So sue me, sue me, go ahead, sue me... (8)
-Nathan Detroit's line in "Sue me" (chorus) from Guys and Dolls
In case you haven't figured, the courts would settle such a dispute if it
were at all relevant. If it were over pennies, you would be charged with
filing a frivolous lawsuit. And if it were at all important, which it is
negligible, you would recieve money. But you have not helped me neither I
you, very much more than the other, in maintaining a debate.
>
>
>
>
Education. Exterior improvement. Charity.
"Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Zy5Ja.256460$ro6.6616706@no-spam
>
> "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:8y0Ja.280468$Vi5.7320728@no-spam
> >
> > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:YmQIa.249349$ro6.6495371@no-spam
> > >
> > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:29QIa.276378$Vi5.7223233@no-spam
> > >
> > > > > you are right? If you were elected PM, what yardstick would you
use
> to
> > > > > decide which would be tax-funded, and which would not?
> > > >
> > > > Whichever services could be reasonably argued beyond doubt to be
> global
> > > and
> > > > irrevocable in benefit, would be paid for by tax.
> > >
> > > What does that mean, in english?
> >
> > Those services which have indirect benefits or absolutely everybody uses
> are
> > global in benefit. It can be said that those services from which
> everybody
> > benefits, are global in benefit.
>
> If you say so. Do you have any specific examples of such services?
>
>
>
>
Au contraire. I think you are equally as a fool as you think me, and I so
much wiser than you as you think yourself to me. And I am suprised if you
got that.
"Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Zy5Ja.284091$Vi5.7389756@no-spam
> Ohhhhhh, I see. You are exempt from paying me for my contribution because
> you value your juvenile drivel as highly as my sage advice.
>
> Is that how it works?
>
>
> "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:0A0Ja.280502$Vi5.7321192@no-spam
> > I am paying you in my own advice and insight. Part of my being in this
> > newsgroup amounts to making posts that are intelligent and offer an
> opinion.
> > I consider this my responsibility.
> >
> > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:ZmQIa.248059$3C2.7197158@no-spam
> > >
> > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:K9QIa.247978$3C2.7193587@no-spam
> > > > People pay for anything that benefits them. That is perfectly just.
> > >
> > > Sounds good to me. I have provided plenty of advice that benefits you,
> > > whether you want it or not. You appear not to appreciate it, but
> > (according
> > > to you) that does not matter. Pay me.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
"Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Zy5Ja.255725$3C2.7345149@no-spam
>
> "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:seQIa.276417$Vi5.7224547@no-spam
> >
> > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:diwIa.239727$3C2.7021329@no-spam
> > >
> > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:VJvIa.240144$ro6.6320661@no-spam
> > > > They mint money but they also burn almost as much old currency and
> melt
> > > the
> > > > coins. This is why our currency is worth something. If money was
> > leaves,
> > > > it would cost a million of them to buy a loaf of bread. And if
these
> > > leaves
> > > > were never taken out of circulation, there would be another equal
crop
> > > every
> > > > year and eventually loaves of bread would cost 2 million, then 3,
and
> > then
> > > > four, and so on. So the value of your leaves would decrease.
> > >
> > > You are mistaken. I recommend a beginners text on economics.
> >
> > Perhaps my numbers are a bit off, but are you denying that inflation can
> > make a currency worthless?
>
> I am telling you that you are wrong, that is not why our currency is worth
> something.
In part, it is worth something because it is not as abundant as leaves. In
another part, it is becuse it is backed by an economy and by gold.
>
> > > > This applies to more conventional currency, as well. If the
> government
> > > > could jsut constantly mint and mint and mint until they had enough
to
> > pay
> > > > for all the expendatures withoutany other income, your currency
would
> be
> > > > worth that much less. The value would go to whoever minted the
money,
> > > that
> > > > being the government.
> > >
> > > As I said previously, it is a question of balance.
> >
> > Are you not against them robbing you? They tax everybody that has
money,
> in
> > this case, by making $1 worth less of the total.
>
> Remind me to tell you the story of the two chickens. It's very
educational.
Are you denying the principle of inflation again?
>
>
> > > > This is why counterfiet is such an issue: a counterfieter is
actually
> > > > stealing from everyone who posesses the currency being
counterfieted.
> > >
> > > Does the same reasoning apply to the mint? If not, why not?
> >
> > Of course it does, as long as the mint makes more money than they
destroy.
>
> So, if the mint makes more currency than it destroys, then it is stealing
> from people? Why isn't the mint arrested when they do that?
They are part of the government (or, in some cases, sanctioned by it) and
are not arrested for the same reason taxmen aren't.
>
> > As you may know, the Royal Canadian Mint also destroys old currency:
bills
> > are burned and coins are melted. A total of all this destroyed currency
> is
> > produced, and an amount only slightly greater is created anew. However,
> if
> > the mint creates less, they are giving us money (or rather, value). If
> they
> > create the same, it makes no difference. So you can put it to a common
> > thing, e.g. the cost of living (Note: It doesn't really matter what
> > variables are taken into account, as long as they don't change).
Usually,
> > inflation is reflected by that.
>
> Again, you are mistaken. However, you are close to correct with some of
what
> you say. You do seem to have a better grasp of the material than most of
the
> idiot socialists here in the ng, so that's a point in your favor.
>
>
How do you figure I am mistaken?
>
>
<nshinede@no-spam> wrote in message
news:lpnJa.1514$xv.1249@no-spam
> Tickle Mi; Debating with Falcon is like riding on an "unkown flying
object"
> Maybe an exciding nightmare, but hardly reality!
I noticed.
He claims to be #2 man in some revolutionary army.
Apparently, we have a difference of opinion. One that cannot be resolved.
From that, we can also conclude that your theory regarding "responsibility
to pay" is also a matter of mere opinion, and cannot be resolved.
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:0nqJa.289567$Vi5.7564610@no-spam
> Au contraire. I think you are equally as a fool as you think me, and I so
> much wiser than you as you think yourself to me. And I am suprised if you
> got that.
>
> "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:Zy5Ja.284091$Vi5.7389756@no-spam
> > Ohhhhhh, I see. You are exempt from paying me for my contribution
because
> > you value your juvenile drivel as highly as my sage advice.
> >
> > Is that how it works?
> >
> >
> > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:0A0Ja.280502$Vi5.7321192@no-spam
> > > I am paying you in my own advice and insight. Part of my being in
this
> > > newsgroup amounts to making posts that are intelligent and offer an
> > opinion.
> > > I consider this my responsibility.
> > >
> > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:ZmQIa.248059$3C2.7197158@no-spam
> > > >
> > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:K9QIa.247978$3C2.7193587@no-spam
> > > > > People pay for anything that benefits them. That is perfectly
just.
> > > >
> > > > Sounds good to me. I have provided plenty of advice that benefits
you,
> > > > whether you want it or not. You appear not to appreciate it, but
> > > (according
> > > > to you) that does not matter. Pay me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:GpqJa.289576$Vi5.7565108@no-spam
>
> "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:Zy5Ja.255725$3C2.7345149@no-spam
> >
> > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:seQIa.276417$Vi5.7224547@no-spam
> > >
> > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:diwIa.239727$3C2.7021329@no-spam
> > > >
> > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:VJvIa.240144$ro6.6320661@no-spam
> > > > > They mint money but they also burn almost as much old currency and
> > melt
> > > > the
> > > > > coins. This is why our currency is worth something. If money was
> > > leaves,
> > > > > it would cost a million of them to buy a loaf of bread. And if
> these
> > > > leaves
> > > > > were never taken out of circulation, there would be another equal
> crop
> > > > every
> > > > > year and eventually loaves of bread would cost 2 million, then 3,
> and
> > > then
> > > > > four, and so on. So the value of your leaves would decrease.
> > > >
> > > > You are mistaken. I recommend a beginners text on economics.
> > >
> > > Perhaps my numbers are a bit off, but are you denying that inflation
can
> > > make a currency worthless?
> >
> > I am telling you that you are wrong, that is not why our currency is
worth
> > something.
>
> In part, it is worth something because it is not as abundant as leaves.
In
> another part, it is becuse it is backed by an economy and by gold.
That is nonsense. many things are not terribly abundant, but they are
worthless. There is no "gold backed" economy, it is all fiat currency now.
Currency is not "backed by an economy" at all. Currency is worth something
for only one reason: trust that other people will continue to use it as a
medium of exchange.
That's it. It's merely an idea. Get it?
> > > > > This applies to more conventional currency, as well. If the
> > government
> > > > > could jsut constantly mint and mint and mint until they had enough
> to
> > > pay
> > > > > for all the expendatures withoutany other income, your currency
> would
> > be
> > > > > worth that much less. The value would go to whoever minted the
> money,
> > > > that
> > > > > being the government.
> > > >
> > > > As I said previously, it is a question of balance.
> > >
> > > Are you not against them robbing you? They tax everybody that has
> money,
> > in
> > > this case, by making $1 worth less of the total.
> >
> > Remind me to tell you the story of the two chickens. It's very
> educational.
>
> Are you denying the principle of inflation again?
What???
> > So, if the mint makes more currency than it destroys, then it is
stealing
> > from people? Why isn't the mint arrested when they do that?
>
> They are part of the government (or, in some cases, sanctioned by it) and
> are not arrested for the same reason taxmen aren't.
So you now admit that taxation is a fancy style of thievery?
>
> >
> > > As you may know, the Royal Canadian Mint also destroys old currency:
> bills
> > > are burned and coins are melted. A total of all this destroyed
currency
> > is
> > > produced, and an amount only slightly greater is created anew.
However,
> > if
> > > the mint creates less, they are giving us money (or rather, value).
If
> > they
> > > create the same, it makes no difference. So you can put it to a
common
> > > thing, e.g. the cost of living (Note: It doesn't really matter what
> > > variables are taken into account, as long as they don't change).
> Usually,
> > > inflation is reflected by that.
> >
> > Again, you are mistaken. However, you are close to correct with some of
> what
> > you say. You do seem to have a better grasp of the material than most of
> the
> > idiot socialists here in the ng, so that's a point in your favor.
> >
> >
>
> How do you figure I am mistaken?
The mint is not stealing from people if it creates more currency than it
destroys.
Yes, I do.
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:AfqJa.261179$3C2.7502520@no-spam
> Do you know?
>
> "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:Yy5Ja.256458$ro6.6616919@no-spam
> >
> > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:ju0Ja.253249$ro6.6570458@no-spam
> > > Where do you think the money in the government pocket comes from?
> >
> > I really do not care where it comes from. All I ask is that they do not
> > steal it or defraud anyone.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:7sqJa.261225$3C2.7504857@no-spam
> > In general, people will do what is necessary to reduce their tax burden,
> and
> > that is de facto control of people's choices. That is what taxation is
all
> > about, and the "revenue raising" aspect is a bit of a con. In reality,
> > governemnt is stealing a portion of your labor, without actually forcing
> you
> > to labor at any one particular thing. Very clever, really.
>
> So the government is forcing us to invest in material assets and give
gifts
> to false entities under our control and set up companies and put money in
> foreign banks? That is generally the advice given. The reason is tax
> sheltering. But I don't see why the government would want us to do things
> like that.
You have an investment advisor who told you to set up false entities, make
fraudulent transactions, and evade tax with foriegn bank accounts! I find
that very hard to believe.
>
> >
> > Taxation is slavery.
> >
> >
> > > > > Do you think it is a way of trying to
> > > > > make people earn less money?
> > > >
> > > > What???? You really are incredibly stupid.
> > >
> > > If it was a means of incentive or control, what else could it be? I
> think
> > > you are severely mistaken if you think it could be anything else.
> > >
> > > Just out of curiosity, why do you never answer my question: What do
you
> > > think income tax makes us do, in terms of controlling us?
> >
> > Taxation coerces people to do things that they otherwise might not.
>
> Things that are no benefit to the government, in any way.
I see. So, your advisor did not mention RRSP or CSBs or Canadian
corporations?
Tickle Mi! We Agree!!! I'm a poet, and I know it!!!
"Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Ed1Ia.254115$Vi5.6716049@no-spam
>
> <nshinede@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:y4MHa.140264$BA.45157788@no-spam
> > Tickle; You know, if the politicitians want money invested in a
particular
> > area, they simply write tax laws providing "benefits" to those who so
> > invest.
>
> And if they wish to have investement curtailed in some areas, they offer
> fewer incentives or more taxes to those things. An obvious example is
> tobacco tax. The tax is intended to control people's behaviour.
>
> > No big secret. All you gotta do is read the laws.
>
> Yes, but Falcon seems not to have figured out that part.
>
> > But that's still government management of the people who create the real
> > wealth.
>
> Of course. What would be the point of controlling people who create no
> wealth?
>
>
> > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:4iRGa.200054$ro6.5496919@no-spam
> > > In order to fully explain it, you would first need a good
understanding
> of
> > > what money is and how it is created in our system. To make it fairly
> > > obvious, phone a financial advisor (there are lots in the phone book)
> and
> > > say that you have just inherited $100,000. Listen carefully to what
the
> > > advisor recommends you do - and why he recommends it. You will soon
> learn
> > > that taxation 'guides' people's actions, and that is the primary
> purpose.
> > >
> > > The stuff about "raising revenue" is merely to fool the innocent.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:%fPGa.227256$Vi5.6085920@no-spam
> > > > About the controlling of people, I mean.
> > > >
> > > > "Tickle Mi" <ticklish@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:xMcGa.207997$Vi5.5777397@no-spam
> > > > > Well... if some people truly don't want them, then how necessary
can
> > > they
> > > > > really be?
> > > > >
> > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:OZbGa.179020$ro6.5200805@no-spam
> > > > > > That is riduculous. Explain why it is so?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Änönÿmöüs Cöwärd" <anonymous@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:osbGa.180182$3C2.5769850@no-spam
> > > > > > > Sure. Or just pay as you go. If these services are (as you
say)
> > > > > necessary
> > > > > > > and desirable, then there ought not to be any difficulty with
> > that.
> > > > The
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > > problem ones are those that some people think other people
> should
> > be
> > > > > > forced
> > > > > > > to pay for, even though they are not wanted. All things
> > considered,
> > > > we'd
> > > > > > > probably all be a lot further ahead if the government did not
> > force
> > > > > > > dissidents to pay for those.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But then, all of this ignores the fact that taxation is not
> really
> > > > about
> > > > > > > raising revenue to pay for things - it is about controlling
the
> > > > > > population.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:iT9Ga.178194$ro6.5164273@no-spam
> > > > > > > > So then, a checklist of what services you want, and you
would
> > need
> > > > to
> > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > track of this somehow? Maybe a smartcard or something.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "»Tylêr Dûrdên«" <t_durdre@no-spam> wrote in
message
> > > > > > > > news:_n9Ga.179448$3C2.5730872@no-spam
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > http://www.bcrevolution.ca/
> > > > > > > > > "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > news:OS8Ga.206530$Vi5.5709273@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > There is certain amount that must be paid. The people
> > decide
> > > > what
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > spent on, but it must be paid. It is just one
suggestion.
> > > And
> > > > > oh,
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > did
> > > > > > > > > > mind paying so much.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Also, perhaps people could set a contribution that
> everyone
> > > > would
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > make? Still, if you decided how much to pay many people
> > would
> > > > > > defraud
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > system by paying nothing and then everyone else would
pay
> a
> > > lot
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > people (who paid nothing) and their benefit.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Perhaps we need a law that if people pay a certain amount
> of,
> > > for
> > > > > > > example,
> > > > > > > > > property tax for police, fire and water... the amount
> > collected
> > > > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > none
> > > > > > > > > more than is needed? With that in place I have little
doubt
> > > people
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > gladly pay for such services, so it is hardly necessary to
> > > > threaten
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > pay. You don't pay, you don't get the service.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Another example is gas tax: It makes sense to charge a
small
> > fee
> > > > for
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > price of building and maintaining highways, but when
you're
> > > paying
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > five times the amount needed (feds alone collect 7.7
> billion),
> > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > not right. The government can also charge commerc