12 cent federal gas tax increase coming?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Bullcrap. There is no human shortage by any stretch of the imagination so no, we shouldn't be paying people to reproduce.

Define shortage. The level of prosperity enjoyed today would not be possible without the current population.

Technology is making it possible to do more with less people, but people are always required to advance knowledge and cultivate resources.

Then there is the whole school funding mentality, where it is literally impossible to throw too much money at schools. Levies, levies, and more levies and it is never enough. 3/4 of the State's entire budget and it still isn't enough. State paid kindergarten and pre-school isn't enough- I suppose the State will eventually be teaching fetii in the wombs?

No disagreement here. We spend more per capita on education and have poor results.

Regardless, I maintain that children are a community garden, and it's in our interest that they grow healthy so that they bear good fruit.

It took a community to raise us, and in return we have a responsibility to raise our replacements.

This fact is independent of the argument of overpopulation. That subject has nothing to do with the importance of current children growing and producing fruit that will be shared with us.

Originally Posted by darcane

That just tells me Social Security is broken...

It's supposed to be a final safety net for a small percentage of old and disabled (as in actually unable to work... lots of fraud these days here.) rather than a pool of money for all to dip into.

My failed attempt at strikethrough also resulted in my failed attempt to convey sarcasm. I've fixed the strikethrough word and added an emoticon to help others see that I was being facetious.

Originally Posted by XYZ

Is taxation by government harmful to the individual?

Yes, which was my point!

At first I thought you were being intentionally obtuse, but now I'm beginning to think you aren't. Which is it?

Huh? That's philosophical double-speak.

My stating the definition of a word in it's context is philisophical double-speak. How so?

Who's doing the robbing? The STATE. The governmental STATE, not "the state of being".

I never disagreed or implied otherwise. Did you see somewhere that I suggested otherwise?


[quote]
So the "problem" is that Paul is "poor" and the STATE is invoked by those like you to make things even, square and fair, and "just" - according to you and as many masses of people that can vote for "justice".

Are you asking me, me; or are you asking a rhetorical question to a broader audience?

If asking me, personally, I ask you to cite where I suggested the state is responsible for making things economically fair and just?

I assume you are referring to shadenfreude... You can look it up and realize its meaning.

I did look it up, which is how I understood it's meaning and came to respond coherently to your use of it.

You might also become aware that the National Socialist party of Germany was referred to with an infamous, well known, abbreviation. (Hint: we probably know what it is, and to where it leads.)

I withdraw my praise for avoiding references to Nazi's, for you only. The flip side to that coin is you win the award for being first to invoke the most negative imagery many can think of.

[XYZ]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

My failed attempt at the strikethrough also resulted in my failed attempt to convey sarcasm. I've fixed the strikethrough word and added an emoticon to help others see that I was being facetious.

Please post the retraction with both your original as well as your revision, so we don't need to go hunting for it in previous posts, to understand what you are trying to say.

[Frank Lee]

Regardless, I maintain that children are a community garden, and it's in our interest that they grow healthy so that they bear good fruit.

It took a community to raise us, and in return we have a responsibility to raise our replacements.

No doubt you have spawning on the brain right now. Suddenly welfare for reproducers looks like a great idea.

Define shortage. The level of prosperity enjoyed today would not be possible without the current population.

Technology is making it possible to do more with less people, but people are always required to advance knowledge and cultivate resources.

There is no shortage- far from it. All signs point to overpopulation. And governments worldwide pay people to reproduce in order to kick the can down the road with all their Ponzi schemes.

Technology is going to butt up against reality at some point. I think sooner rather than later.

Then there is quality of life; 49 people per square inch does nothing to increase the quality of life.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I'm for user-based taxation too thus schools should be funded by parents not property owners... bwahahahahaha!!!

This is a sore point for me, not only do I 100% fund my own child's education, she is homeschooled by my stay at home wife who quit her double minimum wage full time job to do it. Then our single income of about $65k/yr working 50hrs/week puts us in a fully paying, zero receiving tax bracket that gets pay for teachers to make more then me and take 3 mo this off in the summer.
I actually work for the Post Office which as bad as it is, is the best example of a federal government service you will find. It's authorized by direct language in the constitution, it receives no money other then the postage it sells, the postage rates are not based on income but only on how much you use the service. If you don't want to use it, it costs you nothing. They do get a small amount from the general budget to reimburse some of the free services we are required by congress to perform. The losses of late are not really losses but results of long term budget shenanigans by congress. We may someday be dead but if we were unleashed we could enter a new age of online buying and shipping that may make us more valuable then ever. Unless you are a little high profit niche store we and Amazon put out of business.

[XYZ]

Redpoint Quote:

Regardless, I maintain that children are a community garden, and it's in our interest that they grow healthy so that they bear good fruit.

It took a community to raise us, and in return we have a responsibility to raise our replacements.

Frank replies:

No doubt you have spawning on the brain right now. Suddenly welfare for reproducers looks like a great idea.

"It takes a village."

"It takes a society."

It takes "The Great Society."

It takes the Welfare State.

Welcome to Socialist America. Nothing new about it. FDR. LBJ. BHO.

Children are NOT a "community garden". I have both, children and a garden. I maintain both at my expense. Neither is a "communal" undertaking. Both are a personal responsibility, not one of government. But despite your propagandist metaphor, I refute the suggestion that children and plants are to be equated, and I do not endorse the ever-expanding welfare state.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by XYZ

Does the observation apply to everyone, under all circumstances?

Of course not, since very few things apply to everyone, in all circumstances. But it seems to occur frequently enough to be the norm.

I don't see anyone using chamber pots, nor do I see them emptying them in the streets. We are no longer living in the 16th century.

Sure, that was just a nice graphic example that everyone should be able to understand. The same mental attitudes lead large numbers of people to, just for instance, insist on getting their electricity from fossil fuels, because the adverse consequences don't show up right then and there, and affect them directly.

BTW, there is a difference between stupidity, ignorance and willful disregard.

Of course there is, but my point is that the effects on me are the same, regardless of which of the three motivated the action. As for instance, my dickhead neighbor who, every day at the crack of dawn, idles his oversized diesel truck for 15 minutes or so. Do I (and the rest of the neighbors) care whether he does this out of stupidity, ignorance, or willful disregard for his neighbors? We still have to listen to and smell the thing.

If you don't support "let live" you will end up living in a world of imposed misery.

The ones I'm thinking of as ignoring the "let live" are the self-proclaimed *libertarian"* types who, for example, think everyone else should be happy to breathe their second-hand tobacco smoke. They're happy to 'live', but come up way short in the 'let live' department.

*In quotes because I don't think they have the slightest understanding of what libertarianism is, other than an excuse for doing whatever they please, regardless of how it affects others.

[Frank Lee]

This is a sore point for me, not only do I 100% fund my own child's education, she is homeschooled by my stay at home wife who quit her double minimum wage full time job to do it.

It's a sore point for me too; once upon a time I had a pile of rental properties that were taxed at triple the homestead rate. I pumped many thousands of dollars into the local school district (for which I've never had a kid enrolled) while Mr. and Mrs. Cottontail down the street with their huge brood not only contributed but a fraction of what I did to the school via the property taxes, they probably skipped out on income taxes altogether due to all those deductions while at the same time the gummint ran off with about 30% of my income. Butthurt? Yeah, one could say that.

[Fat Charlie]

redpoint5- My point about leftover money was that it doesn't exist and would take completely insane taxes to accomplish. We've been topping off the highway fund with debt since 2008 and need to increase the gas tax just to stop taking money from elsewhere, much less fund anything else.

New Hampshire (not quite a big government poster boy) just made its move: this morning a 4 cent per gallon tax kicked in. It's our first increase since 1991, and it's for highway work. We're not fans of taxes and we like them to reflect what they're spent on.

[Vman455]

Because it's come up a few times already: sChadenfreude! Yes, it's spelled with a "c"!

Back to what you were doing.

[Grant-53]

The fundamental question is whether any tax can be collected and spent efficiently for the maximum benefit of the community. There are a number of tasks best suited to government functions. Among those are common defense, punishment of crimes that directly cause harm to others, reliable weights and measures including currency, and possibly some public utility projects. Addressing poverty is a function of our religious beliefs and practice. We are tempted by fear of loss to "make the other guy pay" so we can get what we want. This happens in business and in government. The question is can an increase in fuel taxes improve our collective well-being? Given the current state of affairs my answer is: not much. The humanist/socialist operating model is self defeating which is why I favor the compassionate conservative model. We as ecomodders value improved efficiency and personal initiative. I have lived most of my life below the so called poverty line. If earned income credits and Medicaid has helped me deal with times of poor health, I am grateful and volunteer my time to help others when I can. I vote and my elected officials hear from me when I can add value to the public debate. We raise our children with the skills to earn their way and help others. Better to pray on your knees than to prey on your neighbors.