On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:49:09 GMT, John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam>
wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:13:56 GMT, .BitHead. <bithead@no-spam>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 16:48:10 GMT, John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No, I guess not. You think that they elect these governments, because
>>>they are masochistic, and want to suffer over-taxation.
>
>>Perhaps he was using you and your statements here as his guidestick?
>
>It is typical of you to read every disagreement with your overly
>selfish values as some sort of weakness.
Put more correctly, it's typical of me to point out your weaknesses to
you, and typical of you to try and blame them on someone else.
----
_____________________________________________________________
/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 /\
____________________________________________________________/ /
____________________________________________________________\/
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:36:07 GMT, John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam>
wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 00:47:17 GMT, "Jennifer Wainwright"
><JenniferWainwright@no-spam> wrote:
>
>>
>>"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:
>>> [Remaining content read and then deleted.]
>
>>[ditto]
>
>A good decision. My more discursive posts are likely beyond your
>comprehension.
>
>[Don't be offended. I must be allowed my attempts at humour.]
>
>>I still haven't seen you answer the original question of this thread: vis:
>>How much taxes is fair?
>
>That is like asking how much is a the proper amount to pay a school
>teacher, a bank clerk, a surgeon, or a professional athlete.
Yes it is. And the reason each has gtten so damned high is exactly
that we DON'T ask.
>
>The best answer is: whatever each of them is being paid at any given
>time.
>
>Our legislators do not appoint themselves. They are elected. If they
>hope to be re-elected, they understand that they must please at least
>a plurality of their constituents.
>
>The only proof one needs that the current level of taxation is
>acceptable comes in acknowledging that it has been arrived at by
>the Canadian democratic political process.
>
>Whenever there has been a widespread enough feeling that taxes have
>become burdensome, they have been eased.
>
>And when there is a widespread feeling that taxation is inadequate for
>the provision of a level of services that most people desire - as in
>Ontario today - we throw the under-taxing government out on its ass.
>
>See you in September, Mr. Eves.
So, you think that the current 65% of total income is too low a tax.
See? the truth WILL eventiually out.
----
_____________________________________________________________
/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 /\
____________________________________________________________/ /
____________________________________________________________\/
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:38:04 GMT, John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam>
wrote:
>On 26 Jun 2003 10:02:32 -0700, david_l_simpson@no-spam (Dave
>Simpson) wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>What!
>
>Some of you people are starting to understand *cognitive dissonance*
>finally?
>
>You are beginning to realise that none of us can tell, when our
>thinking is wrong?
>
>Now that's real progress!
No.
We understand YOU can't.
You remind us of it several times daily.
----
_____________________________________________________________
/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 /\
____________________________________________________________/ /
____________________________________________________________\/
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:55:19 GMT, "Tickle Mi"
<ticklish@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:r6m8hvk9qcpuqpp2kdtgjbade6egp4ue6f@no-spam
>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:21:58 GMT, Good Guy
>> <GoodGuysFinishFirst@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>> >John Carrick wrote:
>>
>> >> We remit taxes to governments at different levels so that they can
>> >> carry out various activities on our behalf.
>>
>> >> You see, most of appreciate having roads, police and fire departments,
>> >> schools, hospitals, air traffic control...
>>
>> >Most people don't have a problem with paying taxes to pay for these
>things.
>>
>> No doubt, but if you took the time to read the post to which I was
>> replying, you saw that it equated all taxation with *slavery*.
>>
>> He was saying that anyone who agreed to be taxed was volunteering to
>> be enslaved.
>>
>> And that is certainly anarchistic nonsense.
>>
>> >...and the thousands of other things offered by government, that permit
>us to live productive lives.
>> >
>> >It is these 'thousands' of things that people don't like.
>>
>> You don't like government providing services that help you to make
>> your life more productive?
>
>I think you misunderstood the man.
No, I did not. My reading comprehension is certainly in the top decile
for Canada.
>He said that he does not have a problem paying for those things.
How can you interpret someone calling taxation "slavery", with a
willingness to be taxed? Your interpretation of what the original
poster said said is nonsense!
>> How very strange.
>
>Yes, you are very strange old bird.
Oh, fuck off with that sort of talk,
Your problem with me has nothing to do with my being "strange".
Your problem with me is that I am left of centre and that I pay all of
my taxes willingly.
>> I think you meant to say something else, didn't you?
>
>He did say something else. You need to sharpen your reading skills and learn
>to stop seeing 'neo-cons' behind every bush.
You are talking rubbish.
I suggest that you go back to the original post. You'll see that he
was complaining that taxes turn us all into slaves.
How the hell can you quarrel with me for telling him that he is
talking stupidly?