From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Taxes? What have the Romans done for us ...
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:42:51 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Nov11.192718.3760@tandem.com> pearson_steven@tandem.com (Steven R. Pearson) writes:
    >BZZT! Math check. The "rest of (your) money" is not equal to
    >100% of your gross, so 8% of it is not equal to 8% of your
    >gross. Assuming the other numbers are correct, the addition
    >is actually 4.4%.

Oops and yes that is correct.

    >The street in front of your house.

That is paid for by my gasoline taxes. And actually, in myu case, I paid
for it when I bought my home. The developer (ultimately me of course) had
to pay for ALL kinds of things people think of as coming from taxes.
Sewer connection and sewer bond retirement, the street connections to
the homes, ...

As the gasoline taxes are a small fraction of what I spend AFTER I have
around 50% of my gross income taken away, this is an invalid example.

    >The computer network on which you so regularly exercise your
    >right to free speech.

I pay for my primary computer connection personally. I am willing to
pay for all my use. So that is maybe what, another $200 a year?

    >>1. Unemployment insurance? I've paid into this since I was
    >>working at age 12. I may get two or so years of a check that
    >>nowhere remotely begins to cover my missing paycheck.
    >>
    >You paid only in the sense that your employer(s) could have
    >paid you a drib more in salary if it were not going to
    >unemployment insurance. Or, perhaps they would have just
    >pocketed it. And even they did not pay in as much as you
    >would be entitled to if you were laid off.

Right. In other words, a tax that is essentially useless.

    >>2. Social security? The SS check, if I am so unlucky as to
    >>end up depending on it, may allow me to buy a fairly tasty
    >>can of dog food for dinner. And SS is explicitly not a
    >>retirement system.
    >>
    >On the other hand, you can take pride in the fact that you
    >are doing your part to support everyone's parents and
    >grandparents in their hour of need. The least you can do,
    >since it was they who ensured you did have this fine country
    >to live in. Despite its faults, it could be a lot worse.

Oh? Did they get old suddenly? SS is NOT a retirement system. It is
supposed to be a system for those that fell through the cracks. As it
is, it started out as, and currently is, a Ponzi racket. If any non-
State entity tried it, they'd be prosecuted for fraud.

    >>3. Crime? I own a few guns and live in a safe area. Response
    >>time to anything other than a shooting is measured in hours.
    >>The only criminal around taking anything is the State itself
    >>which grabs half my income every year, and has been itching
    >>lately to take away my guns (all criminals like their victims
    >>disarmed).
    >>
    >You could always move to the inner city where you might
    >experience a higher level of police presence.

Thank you for agreeing. The State does do a lousy job in protecting us.
The corrosive welfare system of course provides excellent breeding
grounds for more criminals.

    >>4. Transportation. Nope, nothing I can use in mass transit.
    >>
    >Don't forget that if "those other folks" weren't taking the
    >bus, they might be taking YOUR car.

Eh? Do you mean that if we don't give bread & circuses to the masses
(mass transit) they may revolt (steal our cars)? Wonderful, wonderful.

    >>Based on the number of gallons I buy each year and the direct
    >>taxes in a retail gallon of gasoline, the State gets another
    >>1.3% of my gross income.
    >>
    >>Since I do (supposedly) get roads out of this, I can't count
    >>this as a tax that I get nothing from. Subtracting the mass
    >>transit subsidies of my gas tax, the State gets another .6%
    >>
    >>We are now up to 53% of my gross income.
    >>
    >Give or take a math error or two.

Glad you agree on the main issue. 49% is only a whit less painful than
53%.

    >That's your choice. But again, you should be thankful that
    >the "butchering yards" (???) are keeping "those other
    >people's" kids off the street and giving them some hope of
    >finding work later on. Saves on those other expenses in the
    >future (jails, welfare, etc.).

I'm glad you see the primary purpose of our "free" "schools" is keeping
the kids off of the streets. Expectations of a good education are
vanishingly small ...

    >>Health? Nope, I have to pay for my own health insurance and
    >>my kids.
    >>
    >If you fell on hard times, you might be glad that there IS a
    >safety net.

Pray tell, WHAT is this safety net? If I fell on hard times and couldn't
afford medical insurance, then I could get not-too-bad health care at
Valley Medical Center here in Sanat Clara Valley. And I would owe them
that money forever. If I was "poor" of course, I wouldn't worry about
it, but if I were to try and get back up ...

This "safety net" requires you to stay in the cesspool!

    >Perhaps the problem is that you make too much money. You do
    >have the option of earning less. Go on welfare, receive more
    >than you pay in, and feel just spiffy about yourself.

No, the problem is that I wish to work and provide for myself rather
than stealing from others (whether mugging or welfare, it's all theft).
The "system" steals half (at least) of what I make, wants more, and
provides very little for it.

After taking half my income, I still must pay for clothes, food, shelter,
medical insurance, roads, sewers, education (private), child care, and
soon, in my homeowners association, police (private) protection as well.

Tell me, just what do I get out of this?



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:6750 ca.politics:9361 talk.politics.misc:58224