FRIHOST • FORUMS • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • DIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

WHICH TAXES do you most enjoy paying and having others pay?

   Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion
 


The Philosopher Princess
{SIBLING TOPIC}

This topic is a sibling topic to this other one: Discussion ABOUT “Which taxes...?” topic. If you post or put a watch here, it’s recommended that you do so over there as well, as these sibling topics are associated. Some posts here might be moved to there. Questions about this topic can be posted over there.

{DISCUSSION SET UP}

Everyone likes taxes, right? Very Happy Oh sure, there are specific taxes that you consider to be worse than others, or don’t like at all. That is the purpose of this thread: To give you a chance to specify which taxes you like the most.

This should be a very popular topic because, after all, if you like Government Programs, then you must like taxes. And everyone likes Government Programs (military defense, disaster relief, free education, illegal immigration and border control, retirement plan, police protection, justice system, etc.), right?

So, choose your favorite tax (or taxes), and explain why you like it (or them).

(It’s expected that this discussion will delve into political philosophies, and that’s why it’s here rather than in General Chat.)

{SPECIAL RULES FOR THIS TOPIC}

Arrow Please do not quote the whole tax list. Either quote only what you choose, or type in your choice(es).

Arrow Your favorite tax choices can either be from the tax list in the next post and/or you may specify taxes not listed there.

Arrow For any taxes that you specify, you must assume that you and others will be paying them. (In other words, you can’t specify that other people will pay some taxes, while you do not pay any taxes or you pay different taxes.)

Arrow Arrow Your very first post must be either:
(1) Your choice of favorite tax or taxes, or
(2) A declaration that you are an Anarchist (or specify another name you prefer) who is against all taxes and all Government Programs.

Arrow After your valid first post, you can make any relevant comments you like, including challenges to the DISCUSSION SET UP, above. Invalid posts will be moved to the sibling topic. You may also ask questions or offer other discussion over there.

Arrow I will be playing the role of Facilitator so I am the exception to having to follow the double-arrowed rule. But I will also refrain from making assertions at the substance level of discussion. I may ask pointed questions, etc. to attempt to draw you out. I hope to see lots of thinking discussion between the rest of you. (If the discussion lasts awhile and if it seems appropriate, I may eventually enter into the substance level of discussion. If I do so, I will declare it openly.)
The Philosopher Princess
{TAXES YOU MAY CHOOSE AS YOUR FAVORITES}

These are just some of the taxes that you might specify as being your favorites. You are more than welcome to specify other ones not listed.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (indirect taxes)
Dog License Tax
Drivers License Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Income Tax (Federal)
Income Tax (State)
Income Tax (Local)
Inheritance Tax (death taxes)
Inventory tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Taxes (truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
School Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state, and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Toll Bridge Taxes
Toll Road Taxes
Toll Tunnel Taxes
Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
Trailer registration tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
ocalhoun
I like to see cigarettes taxed. If the government is going to pay to heal cigarette-related illnesses (via social security, medicare , et cetera), then the money should come from those who buy them, not those who know better.
The Philosopher Princess
ocalhoun wrote:
I like to see cigarettes taxed. If the government is going to pay to heal cigarette-related illnesses (via social security, medicare , et cetera), then the money should come from those who buy them, not those who know better.

Very well stated! Smile

If the government were to attempt to stop making payments helping to “heal cigarette-related illnesses”, would your support of cigarette taxes go away Question

After all, isn’t it true that, even then, cigarettes would still be bad for people and that things that are taxed tend to make less of that thing Question
ocalhoun
If the government stops providing healthcare to smokers, that money should go to rehabilitation and education programs to help other smokers stop or never start.
HoboPelican
Watercraft registration Tax

Very small bureaucracy. Fees are resonable. Most of the revenue goes back to safety, salaries and river projects ( At least as far as I've been able to determine Wink ). Decent balance of power and paddle areas.
The Philosopher Princess
Thanks, ocalhoun!

ocalhoun wrote:
If the government stops providing healthcare to smokers, that money should go to rehabilitation and education programs to help other smokers stop or never start.

So, am I correct in understanding these 2 things:

(1) Is it true that you want government to forever collect taxes on cigarettes in any and all cases? (Or, is there any situation where you would no longer support cigarette taxes? If so, what?)

(2) Is it true that you support redistribution of wealth from smokers indirectly and ostensibly to [%%] everyone else (including non-smokers and smokers alike)? If so, would you mind sharing your reasoning behind this particular redistribution of wealth? For example, is it to punish the smokers?
____________________
[%%] I’m using “indirectly and ostensibly to” instead of just “to” because the “rehabilitation and education programs” would only be getting to some people.
Wynand
I study taxation in South Africa. My favourite kind of tax is secondary tax on companies. There are few countries left that must pay secondary tax on companies. It is the easiest to calculate.

There is a specific kind of tax that is not really a tax but it is actually an adjustment you make in your accounting records because of tax. It is called deferred tax. To calculate this deferred tax you have to work out the differences between your assets and liabilities tax bases and their carrying amounts. These differences are called timed differences. If you apply the percentage of tax that you have to pay on these temporary differences you get your deferred taxation.

Now you can see why I hate it…
The Philosopher Princess
Thanks, HoboPelican! Your choice and write-up are very elegant. Smile

HoboPelican wrote:
Watercraft registration Tax

Very small bureaucracy. Fees are resonable. Most of the revenue goes back to safety, salaries and river projects ( At least as far as I've been able to determine Wink ). Decent balance of power and paddle areas.

Desire for a “small bureaucracy” seems reasonable. Would that mean that if the Watercraft operation were subsumed by a significantly larger operation -- for example, Homeland Security, for the stated goal of preventing worldwide terrorism -- would that mean that you wouldn’t support it anymore due to its not being a “small bureaucracy” anymore? Or would it still be pretty good to you even if the orders were coming from a large bureaucracy, above?
HoboPelican
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
Desire for a “small bureaucracy” seems reasonable. Would that mean that if the Watercraft operation were subsumed by a significantly larger operation -- for example, Homeland Security, for the stated goal of preventing worldwide terrorism -- would that mean that you wouldn’t support it anymore due to its not being a “small bureaucracy” anymore? Or would it still be pretty good to you even if the orders were coming from a large bureaucracy, above?


LOL. No, wait, that is not funny at all. Sad

Actually, I guess what I meant was that because it is a small bureaucracy, there is a better use of funds and a more cohesive set of goals and projects. If it suddenly was taken over by Homeland Security, I would not immediately dislike this tax more, but I would be expecting things to change.

I don't know if I think it's the larger bureaucracy that causes a group to flounder or if it is the larger budget that creates superfluous pet projects resulting in inner squabbling. Probably a combination of those and something I'm not thinking of.
The Philosopher Princess
HoboPelican wrote:
LOL. No, wait, that is not funny at all. Sad

You’re good! Smile
~~~~~~~~~~
Would you not see (1) a “larger bureaucracy” and (2) a “larger budget” always going hand-in-hand? Can you really think of any case or any example where there would exist one without the other?
HoboPelican
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
...
Would you not see (1) a “larger bureaucracy” and (2) a “larger budget” always going hand-in-hand? Can you really think of any case or any example where there would exist one without the other?


I think most likely that is true. But sometimes there is more discretionary funding. I guess was wondering which is the bigger issue. More people or more money? My work experience is mostly with a large drug company and I've seen projects get munged when either the funding got too big or the team got too big (In this case, they didn't necessarily go hand in hand). Seems odd, but with either a small budget or a small team, we maintained a tighter focus.
The Philosopher Princess
Wynand, since you’d mentioned “deferred tax”, I thought possibly the “secondary tax” you named first wasn’t actually a tax at all. But I’ve done a little research, and that does appear to be an actual tax.

Holy Moly! Shocked Look at this convolution of formulas from http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Africa/South-Africa-TAXATION.html.

Quote:
The standard corporate tax in South Africa consists of two parts: a 30% flat rate plus an additional 12.5% "secondary tax" on net dividends; that is, dividends paid out less dividends earned. The more earnings retained, the lower the effective tax rate. The maximum effective rate for companies that distribute all their after-tax profits as dividends is 37.8%. A company that distributed, for example, one-third of its after-tax profits would be subject to an effective tax rate of 33%. Double taxation is avoided by granting a credit to companies for dividends received from other South African companies that have paid the secondary tax. These are called secondary tax companies (STCs). Branches of foreign companies are taxed at 35% and are exempt from the secondary tax. A reduced tax rate of 15% on the first 100,000 Rand ($13,600) of profit for small companies was introduced in 2000, and in the 2003 budget the total revenue threshold for qualifying as a small corporation was raised from three million Rand to five million Rand ($408,200 to $690,300). The 2003 budget also introduced a double deduction for the first 20,000 Rand ($2,700) of start-up costs for a new business, an accelerated write-off of research and development capital expenses, and accelerated depreciation for manufacturing assets. Capital gains, untaxed before 2001, are taxed at 15% for companies and 10.5% for individuals. Dividends from South African sources are tax-exempt, but, as of 23 February 2000, dividends from foreign sources received by residents are taxed at 12.5%. South Africa also has a preferential "off-shore" tax regime for international holding corporations, as well as a program of tax incentives administered by the its Industrial Development Corporation designed to assist entrepreneurs in the establishing and/or expansion of economically viable manufacturing industries.

~~~~~~~~~~
I can’t say that I totally understand your post. Did the following.....

Wynand wrote:
Now you can see why I hate it…

.....mean that you were contrasting the tax you hate (deferred tax) with the tax you love (secondary tax)?
The Philosopher Princess
(I’m assuming the “large drug company” you mentioned was a private company. Please correct me if I’m wrong.)

HoboPelican wrote:
I think most likely that is true. But sometimes there is more discretionary funding. I guess was wondering which is the bigger issue. More people or more money?

That’s a valid pondering, in general. It would be interesting to see some studies comparing those. And I think I understand your point of “discretionary funding”.

But how valid is it to compare the results of budget sizes and team sizes of private companies with those of government bureaucracies? Is it not true that there is a big difference in:

(A) the case of private companies, where there is natural pressure from free-market competition to be efficient with the budget while still producing a valuable product or service for the market

and

(B) the case of government bureaucracies where there is a monopoly, and the market competition has been thwarted?
HoboPelican
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
(I’m assuming the “large drug company” you mentioned was a private company. Please correct me if I’m wrong.)

HoboPelican wrote:
I think most likely that is true. But sometimes there is more discretionary funding. I guess was wondering which is the bigger issue. More people or more money?

That’s a valid pondering, in general. It would be interesting to see some studies comparing those. And I think I understand your point of “discretionary funding”.

But how valid is it to compare the results of budget sizes and team sizes of private companies with those of government bureaucracies? Is it not true that there is a big difference in:

(A) the case of private companies, where there is natural pressure from free-market competition to be efficient with the budget while still producing a valuable product or service for the market

and

(B) the case of government bureaucracies where there is a monopoly, and the market competition has been thwarted?




Well, it was publicly traded, but it was not government funded. And you are absolutely correct that there are big differences, but the biggest wasn't mentioned. But let me address your points first.

I don't dispute that the private sector is leaner, but before I worked for DrugCo (not their name Wink ) I worked at the Ohio State University for 14 years and there is one factor that existed with both the State and private sectors. If you don't spend every dime of your budget, you won't get more next year. There is quite a bit of wrangling over those extra bucks towards the end of the year. Even shenanigans that put other legitimate projects in jeopardy.

So even though the private sector has to pay more attention to waste as a whole, the individual business units often act like petty fiefdoms, doing what they have to to protect and expand their "turf". And that is what I was thinking of when wondering whether it was excess people or excess funding munging up the efficiency of a bureaucracy.

Is it fair to compare? I won't claim to know for sure, but I think some of the dynamics are comparable.

Off-topic: The big difference I alluded to is that the people in government often have more job security than in the private sector, thus you might find more "dead weight" in a bureaucracy. Or is that redundant?
loyal
I hope i do not break any rules.

My favourite tax which you did not list is the Zakah tax. It's a Muslim tax in Islam. It's the third pillar of Islam. Basically 2.5 percent of your income is given to charity.

That's my favourite because you help the poor.
The Philosopher Princess
loyal, you followed the rules beautifully Very Happy! I was not familiar with the “Zakah tax” (also called Zukat) but I’ve now looked into it slightly.

Let’s say that I understand how God (the God of Islam) requires the faithful Islamists to follow the 5 pillars, including the 3rd pillar, the payment of Zakat.

Here’s my question for you: Does God require that the Zakat be exacted from followers by force?

In other words, and for example, is it possible for a particular Islamic geographic community of, say, 10,000 loyal Islamists to not collect the Zakat as a tax, but the Zakat instead by given voluntarily by each individual? Or, is it that if the Zakat is not collected by force, then it’s not valid? (Note that I’m not talking about an additional voluntary amount of charity. I’m only referring to the required amount of the 3rd pillar.)
loyal
The Philosopher Princess wrote:

loyal, you followed the rules beautifully Very Happy!


I'm a good boy Smile

The Philosopher Princess wrote:

I was not familiar with the “Zakah tax” (also called Zukat) but I’ve now looked into it slightly.

Let’s say that I understand how God (the God of Islam) requires the faithful Islamists to follow the 5 pillars, including the 3rd pillar, the payment of Zakat.


(note: the God of Islam is also the God of Christianity and Judiasm.)

The Philosopher Princess wrote:

Here’s my question for you: Does God require that the Zakat be exacted from followers by force?

In other words, and for example, is it possible for a particular Islamic geographic community of, say, 10,000 loyal Islamists to not collect the Zakat as a tax, but the Zakat instead by given voluntarily by each individual? Or, is it that if the Zakat is not collected by force, then it’s not valid? (Note that I’m not talking about an additional voluntary amount of charity. I’m only referring to the required amount of the 3rd pillar.)


You have to pay it. But only if you can. If you're poor, you don't have to pay it. If you have enough, you have to pay it. It's not voluntary because it's a command from God Almighty. But like prayer, if the Muslims choose not to give it, then they become a bad Muslim, and don't HAVE to do it. It would be wrong to FORCE someone to pay it, i think personally, because Zakat should be from the heart.

Zakat is usually collected by the community but i suppose them giving it voluntarily is also acceptable.

http://www.realislam.com/zakat_in_detail.htm more on Zakat.
The Philosopher Princess
loyal wrote:
I'm a good boy Smile

Absolutely!

I have two question areas. The second is more important to me than the first.
~~~~~~~~~~
#1: My understanding of the five pillars is that order matters: they are in priority order. Your first post said “the Zakah tax” is:

loyal wrote:
the third pillar of Islam.

Its being the third pillar is what I’ve found elsewhere too. But your new link says it’s the fourth pillar.

http://www.realislam.com/zakat_in_detail.htm wrote:
Zakat In Detail

1. THE MEANING OF ZAKAT AND ITS IMPORTANCE

Zakat is the Fourth Pillar of Islam. It is an obligation (Fard), prescribed by God on those Muslim men and women who possess enough means, to distribute a certain percentage of their annual savings or capital in goods or money among the poor and the needy.

Why the discrepancy? If order matters, why would such a mistake be made? Or is there some other way to interpret my finding?
~~~~~~~~~~
#2: You answered my question directly (thanks!) with this:

loyal wrote:
It would be wrong to FORCE someone to pay it, i think personally, because Zakat should be from the heart.

But all taxes are, by definition, exacted by force. (If something is voluntary, then it is not a tax.)

http://www.realislam.com/zakat_in_detail.htm wrote:
The Prophet (peace be on him) has said: "God has made zakat obligatory simply to purify your remaining property ."

At the point that God is requiring followers to pay Zakat -- even with the strongest obligation we can imagine -- the Zakat is not a tax. But at the point when any such payments are forced by humans in the form of government, then it becomes a tax. (If it’s instead forced by humans in the form of mafia, then it becomes extortion.)

So, my questions are: Do you recognize this difference now that I’ve hopefully made it clearer for our discussion here? In other words, do you see how the Zakat required by God is different from the Zakat required by humans (even if the same term is applied to both)?

And if so, given that you like Zakat (for example, the related altruism of helping the needy) but you don’t agree with it being exacted by force, then would you like to change you support of it as a tax (while continuing to support it as an obligation to God)?

(If anyone believes I’m making assertions outside the scope of what I’d promised in the first post, feel free to raise the issue on the sibling topic, and I will address it.)

Last edited by The Philosopher Princess on Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
loyal
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
I have two question areas. The second is more important to me than the first.
~~~~~~~~~~
#1: My understanding of the five pillars is that order matters: they are in priority order. Your first post said “the Zakah tax” is:

loyal wrote:
the third pillar of Islam.

Its being the third pillar is what I’ve found elsewhere too. But your new link says it’s the fourth pillar.

http://www.realislam.com/zakat_in_detail.htm wrote:
Zakat In Detail

1. THE MEANING OF ZAKAT AND ITS IMPORTANCE

Zakat is the Fourth Pillar of Islam. It is an obligation (Fard), prescribed by God on those Muslim men and women who possess enough means, to distribute a certain percentage of their annual savings or capital in goods or money among the poor and the needy.

Why the discrepancy? If order matters, why would such a mistake be made? Or is there some other way to interpret my finding?

Generally the five pillars are in order. However people are not sure whether fasting or charity comes first. Thus three and four change positions alot. It does not really matter though. Just as long as God is One and Only and Prayer are the top two. I personally choose charity as three, because you can make up missed fasting days or if you cannot fast for health reasons, you can pay charity. You can do charity instead of pilgramage too under special conditions. Islam is flexible.

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~
#2: You answered my question directly (thanks!) with this:

loyal wrote:
It would be wrong to FORCE someone to pay it, i think personally, because Zakat should be from the heart.

But all taxes are, by definition, exacted by force. (If something is voluntary, then it is not a tax.)

http://www.realislam.com/zakat_in_detail.htm wrote:
The Prophet (peace be on him) has said: "God has made zakat obligatory simply to purify your remaining property ."

At the point that God is requiring followers to pay Zakat -- even with the strongest obligation we can imagine -- the Zakat is not a tax. But at the point when any such payments are forced by humans in the form of government, then it becomes a tax. (If it’s instead forced by humans in the form of mafia, then it becomes extortion.)

So, my questions are: Do you recognize this difference now that I’ve hopefully made it clearer for our discussion here? In other words, do you see how the Zakat required by God is different from the Zakat required by humans (even if the same term is applied to both)?

Ah!!! Yes. I understand. Clever, aren't you? So it's not really a tax, just a really strong obligation. Well thanks for teaching me about my own religion Smile

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
And if so, given that you like Zakat (for example, the related altruism of helping the needy) but you don’t agree with it being exacted by force, then would you like to change you support of it as a tax (while continuing to support it as an obligation to God)?

Yes. I no longer believe it's a tax, but a strong obligation.

Thanks. May God bless you.
HoboPelican
loyal wrote:
.....
Yes. I no longer believe it's a tax, but a strong obligation.

Thanks. May God bless you.


Loyal, forgive my ignorance, but I just to make sure I understand. When you said it was collected by the community, does that mean it is collected by a local government body, the church, or an association? What would be the consequences of "not" paying if you had the ability to pay? I'm thinking that something that has strong consequences to non-payment might be only a small step away from being a tax.
The Philosopher Princess
Thank you, loyal, for thinking through the subject with us! It’s a pleasure talking to you.

I just want to add one small thing.

loyal wrote:
Yes. I no longer believe it's a tax, but a strong obligation.

Let’s not forget that the Zakat may still be treated as a tax by other people (if it’s collected by government, i.e., by force) -- though that is not the kind of Zakat you support.

This subject is related to another one from awhile back: Forced charity is not charity at all: Foreign Aid Rip-Off. If you have a chance, you might want to check that out. I suspect it will make you even stronger in your conviction to separate (1) things that actually are charity, because they’re given, like you say, from the heart, and (2) things that are called charity but actually aren’t, because they have been forced out of people, and thus no heart is involved anywhere in the equation.
loyal
HoboPelican wrote:

Loyal, forgive my ignorance, but I just to make sure I understand. When you said it was collected by the community, does that mean it is collected by a local government body, the church, or an association? What would be the consequences of "not" paying if you had the ability to pay? I'm thinking that something that has strong consequences to non-payment might be only a small step away from being a tax.


I'm not sure who it's collected by. a) I've never paid Zakat. I'm too young to have a job. b) I do not live in a Muslim community. So it must be done voluntarily if it is a christian or atheistic community. I must give to charity myself.

Consequences for not paying are not for humans to decide. It's a punshiment on Judgement Day, if you do not repent.
People do pay though unless they are not really Muslims. It's for charity afterall.

PM me if you wish for more info on Islam.

May God bless you all.
----------------
by the way thanks for link princess.
smalls
While I haven't put a whole lot of time into this thought, I think my favorite tax is on gasoline.
Although I haven't done a lot of research on this topic, it seems to me that the general purpose of the gasoline tax is to pay for road construction and maintenance. If this is in fact how the money is really used (probably isn't), then it seems to be a fair tax.........if you use more gas, you're likely to drive more, which means you use the roads more. Seems legitimate, at least on the surface.
The Philosopher Princess
Nicely responsive answer, smalls! Smile

Roads need to be maintained; that’s a given. You’re certainly right that the gasoline tax is sometimes hypothecated to road maintenance, etc. But it’s no secret that some countries’ gasoline tax is known to be a general tax, so budgeted differently at different times.

I was wondering these things: Have you ever had a chance to consider the possibility of roads being privately owned rather than owned by Government? What might be better if that were the case, and what might be worse?

What if you knew that gasoline taxes were not used for roads, but for some government program that you did not support?
HoboPelican
The Philosopher Princess wrote:

I was wondering these things: Have you ever had a chance to consider the possibility of roads being privately owned rather than owned by Government? What might be better if that were the case, and what might be worse?


Until the advent of technologies like RFID, I would have thought it a terrible idea. Having to stop to pay tolls is a major irritation and one thing we don't need on roads is more angry people. Now, I'm not so sure. Not out of the question, but there I would need a lot of queries answered before I would venture an opinion. And I don't want to drive this discussion away from taxation issues. Wink
The Philosopher Princess
HoboPelican wrote:
And I don't want to drive this discussion away from taxation issues. Wink

Smile But you’re steering just fine! Discussing the programs that taxation funds is on-topic, not off. Whether such programs would or would not be better in the private sector is very relevant because, in one way or another, they affect taxation.

HoboPelican wrote:
Having to stop to pay tolls is a major irritation and one thing we don't need on roads is more angry people

I doubt anyone would disagree with you that having to stop to pay tolls is anything but a pain. Every toll I ever remember paying was to a government.

HoboPelican wrote:
Until the advent of technologies like RFID, I would have thought it a terrible idea... Now, I'm not so sure. Not out of the question, but there I would need a lot of queries answered before I would venture an opinion.

So, HoboPelican, do you derive the principles of your political philosophy (i.e., what is codified as right and wrong by law) by what technologies are available at the time Question

Is it not likely that if roads had not been in a protected monopoly that technology to satisfactorily deal with payment for use would have been invented sooner rather than later -- and with many more options having been tried Question

Do you believe that free-market competition leads to more inventions while monopolies stifle inventions Question If not, what do you think motivates humans to invent Question
HoboPelican
The Philosopher Princess wrote:


HoboPelican wrote:
Until the advent of technologies like RFID, I would have thought it a terrible idea... Now, I'm not so sure. Not out of the question, but there I would need a lot of queries answered before I would venture an opinion.

So, HoboPelican, do you derive the principles of your political philosophy (i.e., what is codified as right and wrong by law) by what technologies are available at the time Question

Is it not likely that if roads had not been in a protected monopoly that technology to satisfactorily deal with payment for use would have been invented sooner rather than later -- and with many more options having been tried Question

Do you believe that free-market competition leads to more inventions while monopolies stifle inventions Question If not, what do you think motivates humans to invent Question


No, no, you misunderstood. I was not deriving my philosophies according to tech. I was simply saying that until a way to pay without stopping was devised, privatising all roads would have been very annoying and that is something to avoid when possible. Right or wrong? Phew. I'm not the sort to make THAT sort of value judgement!

The development of things like RFID had little to do with the transportation infrastructure or government monopolies. Actually, the driving force has been the retail market. In fact the (evil) Walmart gave the whole industry a big push a few years ago when they flat out told all major suppliers to implement it by a given date (which they changed a few times). So in this case, the government monopoly had little effect on the tech, but what amounts to a private monopoly (Walmart) did encourage it.

In general, I think monopolies can slow down innovation (Example: Microsoft), but not stop it (Example: Firefox). Competition is a great way to fuel the search for new concepts and tech. But a monopoly also has the potential to foster a creative environment by funding research with their profits (Example: Wishful thinking).

Motivations for invention? I think it is a basic instinct for humans to invent new and better things. The way to foster it is to identify the right people, give them bucks and lock the door. That can be in a government think tank, a corporate strategy room, or a garage. The US may actually have a good system here, where the government funds basic research and freely gives the data to corporations that can focus on developing usable tech out of it.
ocalhoun
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
Thanks, ocalhoun!

ocalhoun wrote:
If the government stops providing healthcare to smokers, that money should go to rehabilitation and education programs to help other smokers stop or never start.

So, am I correct in understanding these 2 things:

(1) Is it true that you want government to forever collect taxes on cigarettes in any and all cases? (Or, is there any situation where you would no longer support cigarette taxes? If so, what?)

The only case in which I would want them to stop taxing it would be if the government completely stopped spending any money on cigarrete-related programs. (Which would be the best case scenario.) (I'm a proponent of small government.)
The Philosopher Princess
ocalhoun wrote:
(I'm a proponent of small government.)

Oh? Very interesting.

Do you think small government is more likely to come from
(1) a smaller budget (i.e., fewer taxes collected) being available for government use, or
(2) people decreasing their support of various government programs (i.e., the funds theoretically wouldn’t be needed for those programs) Question

Asked more generally: What do you think is the main cause of small government Question
smalls
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
Have you ever had a chance to consider the possibility of roads being privately owned rather than owned by Government?

I have considered that scenario. Unfortunately, I feel like roads are one place where the government should step in and provide the service. No doubt it could be done more efficiently if roads were privately owned, but the logistics of paying for private roads would be pretty messy (at least that's my take on it).
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
What might be better if that were the case, and what might be worse?

As I said, certainly private roads would be more efficiently built and maintained. However, I would predict consequences such as even more disparity in maintenance between richer and poorer areas than there is now.
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
What if you knew that gasoline taxes were not used for roads, but for some government program that you did not support?

No doubt that notion (which is no doubt at least partially true) would diminish my affinity for the gasoline tax.
I'm not really a big fan of any taxes as they are written, but this one seems a little more fair on it's face.
On a side note....I wouldn't really have any problem with an income tax that was fairly applied (flat tax). Not to give the government free reign, as the programs supported by the income tax also need to be scrutinized.
The Philosopher Princess
smalls wrote:
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
Have you ever had a chance to consider the possibility of roads being privately owned rather than owned by Government?

I have considered that scenario. Unfortunately, I feel like roads are one place where the government should step in and provide the service. No doubt it could be done more efficiently if roads were privately owned, but the logistics of paying for private roads would be pretty messy (at least that's my take on it).

Okay. Thanks for your candid comments.

If you would care to, pretend for a moment that you’re a new, inexperienced entrepreneur. (Get into that mindset.) Would you not agree, at first glance, that the logistics of funding, maintaining, and running a billion-dollar private company seem “pretty messy”? And yet, stepping back, we know it gets done. In other words, just because something is a HUGE project and is “pretty messy” doesn’t imply -- offhand, anyway -- that it can’t be done privately.

We also know that there would be people brought up in communist/socialist political systems -- people used to their government running the whole commerce show (fixing prices, controlling labor, etc.) -- who sincerely would not believe that it would be possible for a billion dollar company to “work” privately. And yet, from our point of view, we know it can.

So, a question would be: What are the precise differences for when -- in reality, not just in our ponderings -- can something large be managed privately Question

Would you agree that just because we can’t personally imagine how it would be done, doesn’t mean that it can’t actually be done Question
~~~~~~~~~~
Here’s another way we could question this.

smalls wrote:
the logistics of paying for private roads would be pretty messy (at least that's my take on it).

It takes up-front capital investment and on-going business expenses for maintenance to “manage” and “run” an elevator system inside a private high-rise building. Imagine how in the building there are hundreds of different businesses renting office space. They all depend on the elevator system working as perfectly as possible -- otherwise, their businesses can fail.

Customers visiting the offices also depend on the elevators. In this situation, where could the funding for the elevator system come from? One possibility would be for customers visiting the building to be charged “private taxes” (“user fees”). After all, there would, on average, be a larger number of individual customers than individual businesses.

But what we find more often is that it is the businesses (who want many customers to visit) who pay part of their rent towards the elevators. Customers, of course, aren’t getting a free ride, because indirectly their purchases from the businesses are partially going to fund the elevators.

Do you see any analogies between the different methods of funding public elevators and funding public roads Question

What would the funding of an elevator system look like if it were similar to the funding of today’s government roads Question

Would you recognize that whatever methods of funding public transportation that exist today -- that there might be some better funding methods that haven’t been implemented yet Question

If so, would you expect better methods to come from a monopoly government system or from a competitive world of private businesses Question
The Philosopher Princess
I was glad to get your updates and additional comments on technology, etc.

HoboPelican wrote:
But a monopoly also has the potential to foster a creative environment by funding research with their profits (Example: Wishful thinking).

Motivations for invention? I think it is a basic instinct for humans to invent new and better things. The way to foster it is to identify the right people, give them bucks and lock the door. That can be in a government think tank, a corporate strategy room, or a garage. The US may actually have a good system here, where the government funds basic research and freely gives the data to corporations that can focus on developing usable tech out of it.

If this is too personal, don’t answer, but it’s at least a rhetorical question for you to consider for yourself.

Over the whole time when you were a young boy and young man, were you more creative and innovative:

(1) when you were “locked” in a schoolroom and “forced” to do an assigned school project,

(2) when you were “locked” in your bedroom and “forced” to do your assigned homework,

or

(3) when you had no duties but were completely “free” to pursue your personal interests Question
smalls
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
Do you see any analogies between the different methods of funding public elevators and funding public roads Question

I certainly see the similarities. In fact, I know that some business complexes follow the "elevator system" when paying for the roads in and around the business areas. They also often do this to pay for their parking lots. But I can easily see this working on a small scale for governments. For example, perhaps a town could charge it's businesses and residents for the roads (which is usually the case). This would actually be similar to the businesses in a building all chipping in to pay for the elevators. The main difference, of course, is the voluntary versus mandatory nature of the payments. I can't say for sure whether I support the idea of government funding for roads, but it certainly is a service for which the government seems to be suited.

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
If so, would you expect better methods to come from a monopoly government system or from a competitive world of private businesses Question

I virtually always expect better methods from the business world than from government bureaucracy.
The Philosopher Princess
kd5nrh’s post responding to a post of ocalhoun has been moved to the sibling thread.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.