Oh herro

[Regulus]

But where would we be without roads? Would you really suggest doing away with the highway system. We'd be sent halfway back to the stone age. If you want to go somewhere, you'd have to fly, which is too expensive and inefficient (but fun), or walk, which is too slow.

Some things taxes go to are pointless, I agree. But that's exactly why we have a democracy to begin with; so we can decide where the funding should go.

But to argue that personal freedom takes precedence over taxes is kinda... senseless, really. Without taxes at all, we would never accomplish anything. Unless the tax rate is at 50% or higher, you really can't argue that it is an obstruction to your freedom. Because you can still spend the majority of your money freely.

After all, if you know your American history, you'll know that the great freedom we think we have is really only an illusion, and has been taken away for trivial reasons many times before. I don't think I need to say anything more than to remember WWII, and that's really just the tip of the iceberg.

[DGFone]

Yes, I fully agree that taxes are necessary. But what I also believe is that a nation should be able to find the minimum required to tax people. So in other words, when there appears to be too little income for the government, is it because the taxes are too low, or is it because the system is too inefficient?

By having as little taxing as possible, it will not only let people keep more of the money that they rightfully earned, but it also keeps the government from overspending or being inefficient. Because when the government does take my money away to use at it, not I, deems fit, I want to know that every penny is stretched as far as possible and not simply wasted.

[Tabby]

The thing is that charity is not a way to improve a society at all, I'd vote for the 100 with the tax only cause it would kinda force the people to actually work and deserve these water and food. Nowadays, at least in my country people is just lazy, they want a house from the government, they don't want to actually work and that's bad, you've got to teach them to earn it, not just go giving away everything free, otherwise, people would just stop working, anyways, in the end, they'll get their reward, without effort... But is there when you realize if people doens't fight for things, in the end there won't be products, there won't be services, the won't be progress at all.

100 persons with the tax that I hope everyone can pay x)

Oh and Woeler, I guess you're basing that concept on a theoric situation, right?.. Communism, Socialism, Democracy, Capitalism, anything... will not work the way people is, is not about the system we use, it's about the people who's willing on making it work, corruption is the illness of every society, caused for the greedyness as you say, it would be great if everything didn't have a cost, you work as everybody else and you get your reward aswell, without rich and poor, only united, cohesive, progressist people working together for a common good, but there, in our world, comes that asshole that gets adventage and by its greedyness make the system crash, so happens with the capitalism with all this poor-millionarie class difference thing, but the way I see it there's no way to progress without people changing themselves before.

[FlipMode]

The thing is that charity is not a way to improve a society at all, I'd vote for the 100 with the tax only cause it would kinda force the people to actually work and deserve these water and food. Nowadays, at least in my country people is just lazy, they want a house from the government, they don't want to actually work and that's bad, you've got to teach them to earn it, not just go giving away everything free, otherwise, people would just stop working, anyways, in the end, they'll get their reward, without effort... But is there when you realize if people doens't fight for things, in the end there won't be products, there won't be services, the won't be progress at all.

Charity can improve society, Cancer Research charities are the reason why people like my mum have been able to survive it.
Also you think maybe they are poor because they can not get a job? Cant just say "Oh they should be working and making sure they are not poor to begin with." IDK if you are aware but there is an economy crisis and unemployment problems right now. Lazy people sure, I would give you that. But saying poor people should get off their butts and get a job when there are not enough jobs in the World to eliminate poverty is a bit silly.

[Tabby]

I'm talking about the actual situation of my country, besides I'm exagerating my point of view to a point where the charity is not a good option(noticing in the question adzgari did you can only either tax or do charity), tell me it is not truth that a society can't live ONLY with charity, which mean for progress is the improvement itself, the reasearching.. not the way you fund it. If everything was earn by charity and not by work, then people will eventually stop working, leading the society to a collapse. My intention was not to say charity is damaging, maybe in my first post i looked like so, but that was not what i meant, since charity is great, but you can't only depend of charity, that's my point.

Jobs.. here are more works that people that wants to live by the charity, that's for sure...

[Azdgari]

There is only one reason why you would not want such a tax, and that is out of true selfishness.

Well, I think the actual reason is that DF places on a high value on personal freedom, and believes that the taxes are not the best way to help the needy. ;3

[SnowyCheetah]

Firstly, haven't we had this discussion a million times already? Az, you really seem to want to convince us all to agree with you on this subject.

If you could, through pure charity, provide 90 impoverished people with food and water,

This benefits 90 people, at a cost of none to those who are not willing to give up their money.

OR provide 100 impoverished people with food and water through a mandatory tax, which would you choose?

This benefits 100 people at a small cost to everyone. However, to keep things simple, we'll say that most of the people who are being taxed would have paid for the charity anyway. To keep things simple, we'll keep the same population size for both groups, so that it would be 90%.

So, what have we here?

90 people being helped willingly by 90% of a population, or 10 more people being helped by the other 10%.

So, it all boils down to this: should the 10% be forced to help?

If I say no, then that makes me a selfless jerk who doesn't care about people in need. If I say yes, then I'm a selfless jerk who doesn't care about other people's rights to do as they wish with their money.

I'll pass.

That's disappointing. It's not meant to judge character, you know. It's not a "gotcha" question. I'm just looking for more perspective, that's all. C:

>That's disappointing
>goes on to say it's not meant to judge character
>"not a gotcha question"

(just saiyan)

There's no bargaining. That would defeat the purpose of the question.

What's more important to you? That people get that freedom, or that the people get fed? At the end of the day, that's a huge question in the way we run our world, wouldn't you say?

That's totally not implying that the former is selfish, etc.



My work here... is done.

[Azdgari]

Damn it Snow, you foiled my plot to force everyone to agree with my opinion that I haven't expressed!

[DGFone]

For all those who think that taxes are the solution to the problem: they're not. Not because taxes in their principle are bad, but because in the real world, I have yet to see a government that actually knows how to use its taxes properly.

Real life example: Where I live, the streets are perfectly fine as they are. Yet someone in the government chose that at a certain small intersection, it's absolutely important to install a series of traffic lights. End result? Traffic slowed down in the area.

It's not that I am against taxes. It's that I don't trust the government to actually know how to use them properly, because as far as I can see: it can't.

[Regulus]

I'll give you that.