"The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you," Buffett said. "But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on."
The man is a friggin genius and couldnt be more right. The Ronald Reagan trickle down system is pure garbage, its never worked and never will work. Nothing trickles down from rich peoples pockets. Only brain washed people believe that crap
"The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you," Buffett said. "But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on."
The man is a friggin genius and couldnt be more right. The Ronald Reagan trickle down system is pure garbage, its never worked and never will work. Nothing trickles down from rich peoples pockets. Only brain washed people believe that crap
what i dont understand about the whole bush tax cuts. most everyone seems to be for extending them for the lower 98%.... the big discussion is what to do with the "rich", those making 250k+... bc the vast majority of small business owners fall into that catergory... why not make a special legislation so only those making .5 mil or 1 mil + dont get the extension. i mean doesnt that seem like a logical solution???
Well as usually it is because of politics. Republicans want to protect their wallstreet interests. Hedge funds and the link who earn 100s of millions of dollars or more are considered a small business. Not popular to give those guys a tax cut right. Lets just hide them for the public eye as a small business.
what i dont understand about the whole bush tax cuts. most everyone seems to be for extending them for the lower 98%.... the big discussion is what to do with the "rich", those making 250k+... bc the vast majority of small business owners fall into that catergory... why not make a special legislation so only those making .5 mil or 1 mil + dont get the extension. i mean doesnt that seem like a logical solution???
Well as usually it is because of politics. Republicans want to protect their wallstreet interests. Hedge funds and the link who earn 100s of millions of dollars or more are considered a small business. Not popular to give those guys a tax cut right. Lets just hide them for the public eye as a small business.
"government cannot afford to give tax cuts if they have already spent all of the projected tax revenue and dont want to run a deficit"
it is my money. it is your money. it is tikitom's money. it is not government's money
Deficit spending is normal. Always within reason however.
It isn't all your money however. You have used services of the government (education, roads, subway, police, fire, driver's license renewals, military protection, etc.) that is continually being paid for. This is not a defense of how the government is spent, but it is purely myth to suggest that it is all your money.
"government cannot afford to give tax cuts if they have already spent all of the projected tax revenue and dont want to run a deficit"
it is my money. it is your money. it is tikitom's money. it is not government's money
Deficit spending is normal. Always within reason however.
It isn't all your money however. You have used services of the government (education, roads, subway, police, fire, driver's license renewals, military protection, etc.) that is continually being paid for. This is not a defense of how the government is spent, but it is purely myth to suggest that it is all your money.
Deficit spending is normal. Always within reason however.
It isn't all your money however. You have used services of the government (education, roads, subway, police, fire, driver's license renewals, military protection, etc.) that is continually being paid for. This is not a defense of how the government is spent, but it is purely myth to suggest that it is all your money.
i understand that there are government services that are used by all. i would argue that most of those service are unnecessarily performed as a monopoly by governments. schools can be private. fire can be a "pay per" service like in rural areas where its almost like an insurance policy. i live on a private road built by the developer. the town did not build my road
fed governments job is to deliver mail and defend our borders...and thats it. everything else falls to the states. Mass can have MassCase, Cali can impose massive air quality mandates. neither should affect me in NJ
we shouldnt confuse fed and state. one has very limited capacity
Deficit spending is normal. Always within reason however.
It isn't all your money however. You have used services of the government (education, roads, subway, police, fire, driver's license renewals, military protection, etc.) that is continually being paid for. This is not a defense of how the government is spent, but it is purely myth to suggest that it is all your money.
i understand that there are government services that are used by all. i would argue that most of those service are unnecessarily performed as a monopoly by governments. schools can be private. fire can be a "pay per" service like in rural areas where its almost like an insurance policy. i live on a private road built by the developer. the town did not build my road
fed governments job is to deliver mail and defend our borders...and thats it. everything else falls to the states. Mass can have MassCase, Cali can impose massive air quality mandates. neither should affect me in NJ
we shouldnt confuse fed and state. one has very limited capacity
i understand that there are government services that are used by all. i would argue that most of those service are unnecessarily performed as a monopoly by governments. schools can be private. fire can be a "pay per" service like in rural areas where its almost like an insurance policy. i live on a private road built by the developer. the town did not build my road
fed governments job is to deliver mail and defend our borders...and thats it. everything else falls to the states. Mass can have MassCase, Cali can impose massive air quality mandates. neither should affect me in NJ
we shouldnt confuse fed and state. one has very limited capacity
Your argument deals with the what is a necessity and how much is used. My argument deals with actual fronted costs. If you want to debate those issues, I'm game and probably will agree on some of the assertions.
But my original statement that one is 'borrowing' government controlled necessities in exchange for payment later is uncontroverted.
i understand that there are government services that are used by all. i would argue that most of those service are unnecessarily performed as a monopoly by governments. schools can be private. fire can be a "pay per" service like in rural areas where its almost like an insurance policy. i live on a private road built by the developer. the town did not build my road
fed governments job is to deliver mail and defend our borders...and thats it. everything else falls to the states. Mass can have MassCase, Cali can impose massive air quality mandates. neither should affect me in NJ
we shouldnt confuse fed and state. one has very limited capacity
Your argument deals with the what is a necessity and how much is used. My argument deals with actual fronted costs. If you want to debate those issues, I'm game and probably will agree on some of the assertions.
But my original statement that one is 'borrowing' government controlled necessities in exchange for payment later is uncontroverted.
i understand that there are government services that are used by all. i would argue that most of those service are unnecessarily performed as a monopoly by governments. schools can be private. fire can be a "pay per" service like in rural areas where its almost like an insurance policy. i live on a private road built by the developer. the town did not build my road
fed governments job is to deliver mail and defend our borders...and thats it. everything else falls to the states. Mass can have MassCase, Cali can impose massive air quality mandates. neither should affect me in NJ
we shouldnt confuse fed and state. one has very limited capacity
koaj, you really must live in a magical world.
I love the one your developer built the road. I guess that is the only road you drive on. Come on guy wake up, theres services that the country is always going to provide, you need to start realizing that
i understand that there are government services that are used by all. i would argue that most of those service are unnecessarily performed as a monopoly by governments. schools can be private. fire can be a "pay per" service like in rural areas where its almost like an insurance policy. i live on a private road built by the developer. the town did not build my road
fed governments job is to deliver mail and defend our borders...and thats it. everything else falls to the states. Mass can have MassCase, Cali can impose massive air quality mandates. neither should affect me in NJ
we shouldnt confuse fed and state. one has very limited capacity
koaj, you really must live in a magical world.
I love the one your developer built the road. I guess that is the only road you drive on. Come on guy wake up, theres services that the country is always going to provide, you need to start realizing that
I love the one your developer built the road. I guess that is the only road you drive on. Come on guy wake up, theres services that the country is always going to provide, you need to start realizing that
and what im telling you is that just because one road is "private" others can be as well
government should not have a monopoly on civil services as most are more expensive than they need to be and unnecessary
also, we need to distinguish btw federal, state, city, local governments as well
I love the one your developer built the road. I guess that is the only road you drive on. Come on guy wake up, theres services that the country is always going to provide, you need to start realizing that
and what im telling you is that just because one road is "private" others can be as well
government should not have a monopoly on civil services as most are more expensive than they need to be and unnecessary
also, we need to distinguish btw federal, state, city, local governments as well
Also koaj, you must not know how govt totally works, because even if you privatize things, your still going to be taxed for those services, only differnce is the money will be going to private companies.
Also the pay for each service as needed, wont work. Hell if thats the case nobody should pay for car or home insurance, until they actually need to use it. Your ideas sound good in your head, but they wont work in society. Maybe during the stone ages, these ideas could have worked, but not today.
Also koaj, you must not know how govt totally works, because even if you privatize things, your still going to be taxed for those services, only differnce is the money will be going to private companies.
Also the pay for each service as needed, wont work. Hell if thats the case nobody should pay for car or home insurance, until they actually need to use it. Your ideas sound good in your head, but they wont work in society. Maybe during the stone ages, these ideas could have worked, but not today.
Your argument deals with the what is a necessity and how much is used. My argument deals with actual fronted costs. If you want to debate those issues, I'm game and probably will agree on some of the assertions.
But my original statement that one is 'borrowing' government controlled necessities in exchange for payment later is uncontroverted.
deficit spending is normal because thats all we know
if our government had to pay for wars up front in cash. if they had to pay for entitlements up front in cash. neither would ever happen because taxpayers would revolt
the printing of fiat money has allowed for most of this to happen. the head of the serpent lives at the Marriner Eccles building
check the Texas medicaid story from last week. it cost each state roughly $38b a year (cost / 50) to have medicaid...its supposedly voluntary where the states are in and the feds pay for it. if a state wants out they can do so, however if they want to provide medicaid for their citizens it will cost taxpayers 38b a year
this would never work on a city, county, or state level because neither can print and devalue their currency in order to pay for goodies
Your argument deals with the what is a necessity and how much is used. My argument deals with actual fronted costs. If you want to debate those issues, I'm game and probably will agree on some of the assertions.
But my original statement that one is 'borrowing' government controlled necessities in exchange for payment later is uncontroverted.
deficit spending is normal because thats all we know
if our government had to pay for wars up front in cash. if they had to pay for entitlements up front in cash. neither would ever happen because taxpayers would revolt
the printing of fiat money has allowed for most of this to happen. the head of the serpent lives at the Marriner Eccles building
check the Texas medicaid story from last week. it cost each state roughly $38b a year (cost / 50) to have medicaid...its supposedly voluntary where the states are in and the feds pay for it. if a state wants out they can do so, however if they want to provide medicaid for their citizens it will cost taxpayers 38b a year
this would never work on a city, county, or state level because neither can print and devalue their currency in order to pay for goodies
Also koaj, you must not know how govt totally works, because even if you privatize things, your still going to be taxed for those services, only differnce is the money will be going to private companies.
Also the pay for each service as needed, wont work. Hell if thats the case nobody should pay for car or home insurance, until they actually need to use it. Your ideas sound good in your head, but they wont work in society. Maybe during the stone ages, these ideas could have worked, but not today.
the pay per service would work as an insurance policy. each homeowner in a district pays a yearly premium for protection for fire, police, whatever
also on your bold...if government doesnt provide me with fire protection or public schools, they cannot tax me for it. i would contract out with a private service to handle fire protection or snow plowing. maybe the folks on my street can collectively bargain with snow plow companies or fire depts...amazing concept isnt it?
people are smart enough to handle their own business and neighbors are good enough people to help when needed
weve been so conditioned to have Big Brother wipe our ass for us, we dont know what to do when he isnt wiping
Also koaj, you must not know how govt totally works, because even if you privatize things, your still going to be taxed for those services, only differnce is the money will be going to private companies.
Also the pay for each service as needed, wont work. Hell if thats the case nobody should pay for car or home insurance, until they actually need to use it. Your ideas sound good in your head, but they wont work in society. Maybe during the stone ages, these ideas could have worked, but not today.
the pay per service would work as an insurance policy. each homeowner in a district pays a yearly premium for protection for fire, police, whatever
also on your bold...if government doesnt provide me with fire protection or public schools, they cannot tax me for it. i would contract out with a private service to handle fire protection or snow plowing. maybe the folks on my street can collectively bargain with snow plow companies or fire depts...amazing concept isnt it?
people are smart enough to handle their own business and neighbors are good enough people to help when needed
weve been so conditioned to have Big Brother wipe our ass for us, we dont know what to do when he isnt wiping
deficit spending is normal because thats all we know
if our government had to pay for wars up front in cash. if they had to pay for entitlements up front in cash. neither would ever happen because taxpayers would revolt
the printing of fiat money has allowed for most of this to happen. the head of the serpent lives at the Marriner Eccles building
check the Texas medicaid story from last week. it cost each state roughly $38b a year (cost / 50) to have medicaid...its supposedly voluntary where the states are in and the feds pay for it. if a state wants out they can do so, however if they want to provide medicaid for their citizens it will cost taxpayers 38b a year
this would never work on a city, county, or state level because neither can print and devalue their currency in order to pay for goodies
I am not suggesting I disagree with the statements above. What I am saying is that (one of) the basis for taxes is a result of government spending on 'termed' necessities. The government actions (wars, education, services) will always be a deficit because it is not a normal monetary first before action/product arrangement, nor can it be. The government cannot be expected to delay a military action or a service necessity until it has the money in the coffers to provide.
deficit spending is normal because thats all we know
if our government had to pay for wars up front in cash. if they had to pay for entitlements up front in cash. neither would ever happen because taxpayers would revolt
the printing of fiat money has allowed for most of this to happen. the head of the serpent lives at the Marriner Eccles building
check the Texas medicaid story from last week. it cost each state roughly $38b a year (cost / 50) to have medicaid...its supposedly voluntary where the states are in and the feds pay for it. if a state wants out they can do so, however if they want to provide medicaid for their citizens it will cost taxpayers 38b a year
this would never work on a city, county, or state level because neither can print and devalue their currency in order to pay for goodies
I am not suggesting I disagree with the statements above. What I am saying is that (one of) the basis for taxes is a result of government spending on 'termed' necessities. The government actions (wars, education, services) will always be a deficit because it is not a normal monetary first before action/product arrangement, nor can it be. The government cannot be expected to delay a military action or a service necessity until it has the money in the coffers to provide.
The government cannot be expected to delay a military action or a
service necessity until it has the money in the coffers to provide. ---------- define necessity
my understanding of necessity is food, water, some form of shelter...none of which our federal government has the duty to provide
my only argument is that most of what our federal government spends money on, it would never be able to get away with if it had to pay cash up front. paying $50 a month for 2 years for a plasma tv on the amex card is much more palatable than spending $1000 today. american consumers arent very bright...american politicians are american consumers
The government cannot be expected to delay a military action or a
service necessity until it has the money in the coffers to provide. ---------- define necessity
my understanding of necessity is food, water, some form of shelter...none of which our federal government has the duty to provide
my only argument is that most of what our federal government spends money on, it would never be able to get away with if it had to pay cash up front. paying $50 a month for 2 years for a plasma tv on the amex card is much more palatable than spending $1000 today. american consumers arent very bright...american politicians are american consumers
The government cannot be expected to delay a military action or a service necessity until it has the money in the coffers to provide. ---------- define necessity
my understanding of necessity is food, water, some form of shelter...none of which our federal government has the duty to provide
my only argument is that most of what our federal government spends money on, it would never be able to get away with if it had to pay cash up front. paying $50 a month for 2 years for a plasma tv on the amex card is much more palatable than spending $1000 today. american consumers arent very bright...american politicians are american consumers
I don't disagree that words like reasonable and necessity are the types of phrases that are not definable.
With that being said, I don't think you can round peg into round hole the common thought of necessities of food, water, etc. I would say in this day and age, transportation, police, protection, ability to obtain drivers license, etc are essential.
The government cannot be expected to delay a military action or a service necessity until it has the money in the coffers to provide. ---------- define necessity
my understanding of necessity is food, water, some form of shelter...none of which our federal government has the duty to provide
my only argument is that most of what our federal government spends money on, it would never be able to get away with if it had to pay cash up front. paying $50 a month for 2 years for a plasma tv on the amex card is much more palatable than spending $1000 today. american consumers arent very bright...american politicians are american consumers
I don't disagree that words like reasonable and necessity are the types of phrases that are not definable.
With that being said, I don't think you can round peg into round hole the common thought of necessities of food, water, etc. I would say in this day and age, transportation, police, protection, ability to obtain drivers license, etc are essential.
the problem may lie in what one person sees as essential and another does not. Someone may think that 99 weeks of unemployment is essential while another person thinks its far too long. Either way, the money comes from somewhere...and that somewhere is you and I
the problem may lie in what one person sees as essential and another does not. Someone may think that 99 weeks of unemployment is essential while another person thinks its far too long. Either way, the money comes from somewhere...and that somewhere is you and I
the problem may lie in what one person sees as essential and another does not. Someone may think that 99 weeks of unemployment is essential while another person thinks its far too long. Either way, the money comes from somewhere...and that somewhere is you and I
This thread isn't about what is or isn't fair for government expenditures. We could go on that matter for hours, days, years. One poster commented that the money we earn is ours and that just isn't true because we have essentially borrowed from the government by the provision of eduction, militiary, roads, transportation, etc.
Are we taxed too much? Sure, in a sense. Is the government wasteful? Absolutely. But the issue still is that the money we earn isn't completely ours based on services the government has already 'fronted' us.
the problem may lie in what one person sees as essential and another does not. Someone may think that 99 weeks of unemployment is essential while another person thinks its far too long. Either way, the money comes from somewhere...and that somewhere is you and I
This thread isn't about what is or isn't fair for government expenditures. We could go on that matter for hours, days, years. One poster commented that the money we earn is ours and that just isn't true because we have essentially borrowed from the government by the provision of eduction, militiary, roads, transportation, etc.
Are we taxed too much? Sure, in a sense. Is the government wasteful? Absolutely. But the issue still is that the money we earn isn't completely ours based on services the government has already 'fronted' us.
I don't disagree that words like reasonable and necessity are the types of phrases that are not definable.
With that being said, I don't think you can round peg into round hole the common thought of necessities of food, water, etc. I would say in this day and age, transportation, police, protection, ability to obtain drivers license, etc are essential.
i dont think time frame or time period is applicable. the federal government can do certain things and thats it. everything else falls to the states. if NJ becomes a major welfare state i can leave so they wont be able to tax me and pay for the welfare. states would also have to compete for tax dollars sort of like how businesses compete for consumer dollars. its not much different. offer the most for the least and i'm in
I don't disagree that words like reasonable and necessity are the types of phrases that are not definable.
With that being said, I don't think you can round peg into round hole the common thought of necessities of food, water, etc. I would say in this day and age, transportation, police, protection, ability to obtain drivers license, etc are essential.
i dont think time frame or time period is applicable. the federal government can do certain things and thats it. everything else falls to the states. if NJ becomes a major welfare state i can leave so they wont be able to tax me and pay for the welfare. states would also have to compete for tax dollars sort of like how businesses compete for consumer dollars. its not much different. offer the most for the least and i'm in
the pay per service would work as an insurance policy. each homeowner in a district pays a yearly premium for protection for fire, police, whatever
also on your bold...if government doesnt provide me with fire protection or public schools, they cannot tax me for it. i would contract out with a private service to handle fire protection or snow plowing. maybe the folks on my street can collectively bargain with snow plow companies or fire depts...amazing concept isnt it?
people are smart enough to handle their own business and neighbors are good enough people to help when needed
weve been so conditioned to have Big Brother wipe our ass for us, we dont know what to do when he isnt wiping
Your living in afairy tale world. Yeah all the neighbors are gonna just get together and pay for some services. Wake up pal, this isnt 100 years ago where things like that might have worked. That would be a huge cluster fuck.
Also your thing about roads,thats friggin insane. So now we should privatize all the roads in the country, seriously are you drinking at work today. Sorry KOAJ but are roads work just fine the way they are. Trouble with you is, you donot want to pay for anything in society.
the pay per service would work as an insurance policy. each homeowner in a district pays a yearly premium for protection for fire, police, whatever
also on your bold...if government doesnt provide me with fire protection or public schools, they cannot tax me for it. i would contract out with a private service to handle fire protection or snow plowing. maybe the folks on my street can collectively bargain with snow plow companies or fire depts...amazing concept isnt it?
people are smart enough to handle their own business and neighbors are good enough people to help when needed
weve been so conditioned to have Big Brother wipe our ass for us, we dont know what to do when he isnt wiping
Your living in afairy tale world. Yeah all the neighbors are gonna just get together and pay for some services. Wake up pal, this isnt 100 years ago where things like that might have worked. That would be a huge cluster fuck.
Also your thing about roads,thats friggin insane. So now we should privatize all the roads in the country, seriously are you drinking at work today. Sorry KOAJ but are roads work just fine the way they are. Trouble with you is, you donot want to pay for anything in society.
This thread isn't about what is or isn't fair for government expenditures. We could go on that matter for hours, days, years. One poster commented that the money we earn is ours and that just isn't true because we have essentially borrowed from the government by the provision of eduction, militiary, roads, transportation, etc.
Are we taxed too much? Sure, in a sense. Is the government wasteful? Absolutely. But the issue still is that the money we earn isn't completely ours based on services the government has already 'fronted' us.
what have they fronted us that cannot be contracted out to private labor force? schools? fire? police? roads? sanitation? DMV? all can be private. why should government be able to have monopolies?
we'll go back and forth on this. just because something always has been doesnt mean it always will be or should be
This thread isn't about what is or isn't fair for government expenditures. We could go on that matter for hours, days, years. One poster commented that the money we earn is ours and that just isn't true because we have essentially borrowed from the government by the provision of eduction, militiary, roads, transportation, etc.
Are we taxed too much? Sure, in a sense. Is the government wasteful? Absolutely. But the issue still is that the money we earn isn't completely ours based on services the government has already 'fronted' us.
what have they fronted us that cannot be contracted out to private labor force? schools? fire? police? roads? sanitation? DMV? all can be private. why should government be able to have monopolies?
we'll go back and forth on this. just because something always has been doesnt mean it always will be or should be
the pay per service would work as an insurance policy. each homeowner in a district pays a yearly premium for protection for fire, police, whatever
also on your bold...if government doesnt provide me with fire protection or public schools, they cannot tax me for it. i would contract out with a private service to handle fire protection or snow plowing. maybe the folks on my street can collectively bargain with snow plow companies or fire depts...amazing concept isnt it?
people are smart enough to handle their own business and neighbors are good enough people to help when needed
weve been so conditioned to have Big Brother wipe our ass for us, we dont know what to do when he isnt wiping
KOAJ, thats exactly what your tax dollars do already, they pay for those services. You would be really surprised at the actual cost you pay for those services with your tax dollars. Go down to city hall and ask them how much of your own tax dollars actually go toward the police dept, fire dept. You will see that your not paying much. Its where all the rest of the money goes in city hall that is usually a mystery.
the pay per service would work as an insurance policy. each homeowner in a district pays a yearly premium for protection for fire, police, whatever
also on your bold...if government doesnt provide me with fire protection or public schools, they cannot tax me for it. i would contract out with a private service to handle fire protection or snow plowing. maybe the folks on my street can collectively bargain with snow plow companies or fire depts...amazing concept isnt it?
people are smart enough to handle their own business and neighbors are good enough people to help when needed
weve been so conditioned to have Big Brother wipe our ass for us, we dont know what to do when he isnt wiping
KOAJ, thats exactly what your tax dollars do already, they pay for those services. You would be really surprised at the actual cost you pay for those services with your tax dollars. Go down to city hall and ask them how much of your own tax dollars actually go toward the police dept, fire dept. You will see that your not paying much. Its where all the rest of the money goes in city hall that is usually a mystery.
what have they fronted us that cannot be contracted out to private labor force? schools? fire? police? roads? sanitation? DMV? all can be private. why should government be able to have monopolies?
we'll go back and forth on this. just because something always has been doesnt mean it always will be or should be
Your first assertion is a different matter. Sure, those can be done, perhaps better, by private companies. The point is that you have already been conferred the benefit and the government has essentially a lien on your earnings for repayment of that benefit.
what have they fronted us that cannot be contracted out to private labor force? schools? fire? police? roads? sanitation? DMV? all can be private. why should government be able to have monopolies?
we'll go back and forth on this. just because something always has been doesnt mean it always will be or should be
Your first assertion is a different matter. Sure, those can be done, perhaps better, by private companies. The point is that you have already been conferred the benefit and the government has essentially a lien on your earnings for repayment of that benefit.
KOAJ, thats exactly what your tax dollars do already, they pay for those services. You would be really surprised at the actual cost you pay for those services with your tax dollars. Go down to city hall and ask them how much of your own tax dollars actually go toward the police dept, fire dept. You will see that your not paying much. Its where all the rest of the money goes in city hall that is usually a mystery.
therein lies the problem. everyone agreesthat governments are a horrible waste of money yet we support their monopolies on civil services with the next breath. its hypocritical and ridiculous
if you know someone who has gotten into 7 DUIs would you lend them your car? of course you wouldnt
KOAJ, thats exactly what your tax dollars do already, they pay for those services. You would be really surprised at the actual cost you pay for those services with your tax dollars. Go down to city hall and ask them how much of your own tax dollars actually go toward the police dept, fire dept. You will see that your not paying much. Its where all the rest of the money goes in city hall that is usually a mystery.
therein lies the problem. everyone agreesthat governments are a horrible waste of money yet we support their monopolies on civil services with the next breath. its hypocritical and ridiculous
if you know someone who has gotten into 7 DUIs would you lend them your car? of course you wouldnt
KOAJ, thats exactly what your tax dollars do already, they pay for those services. You would be really surprised at the actual cost you pay for those services with your tax dollars. Go down to city hall and ask them how much of your own tax dollars actually go toward the police dept, fire dept. You will see that your not paying much. Its where all the rest of the money goes in city hall that is usually a mystery.
there's 3 fire districts in my town. for my district i paid $1500 in prop taxes last year for fire. i have no idea how many houses are in the district.
i know the tennessee case a few months ago where it was pay for service, its $75 for the year. Can you make an argument that i would get better service for $1500 from government than $75 service from a private provider?
KOAJ, thats exactly what your tax dollars do already, they pay for those services. You would be really surprised at the actual cost you pay for those services with your tax dollars. Go down to city hall and ask them how much of your own tax dollars actually go toward the police dept, fire dept. You will see that your not paying much. Its where all the rest of the money goes in city hall that is usually a mystery.
there's 3 fire districts in my town. for my district i paid $1500 in prop taxes last year for fire. i have no idea how many houses are in the district.
i know the tennessee case a few months ago where it was pay for service, its $75 for the year. Can you make an argument that i would get better service for $1500 from government than $75 service from a private provider?
there's 3 fire districts in my town. for my district i paid $1500 in prop taxes last year for fire. i have no idea how many houses are in the district.
i know the tennessee case a few months ago where it was pay for service, its $75 for the year. Can you make an argument that i would get better service for $1500 from government than $75 service from a private provider?
koaj, that wasnt a private provider, it was a paid dept from another city not a private company. And that was exactly my point in my other post, you would be surprised at how much each homeowner paid towards each service. In my city the average bill for fire protection was from like from 100 to 300 depending on the values of your property. Paying 300 bucks of my taxes towards fire protection around the clock 365 days a year is well worth it to me.
Also in rural areas private companies dont really want to come in because theres not alot of money to be made, thats why most rural areas use volunteer depts.
Heres a thought, if you dont like paying 1500 a year for fire protection, why not form a volunteer dept in your area, then your cost will go way down. Come on get out there and do your community a great service for free. Heres your chance. So will you do it?
Let me tell you something, your always under this impression that if you privatize something that means your cost will be less, thats just not true, these private companies still charge a bundle, only differnece is the workers get paid less while the company ceo"s make bigger bucks.
My city turned our water over to a private company and now my bill is almost double what it used to be. Fuck this private shit
there's 3 fire districts in my town. for my district i paid $1500 in prop taxes last year for fire. i have no idea how many houses are in the district.
i know the tennessee case a few months ago where it was pay for service, its $75 for the year. Can you make an argument that i would get better service for $1500 from government than $75 service from a private provider?
koaj, that wasnt a private provider, it was a paid dept from another city not a private company. And that was exactly my point in my other post, you would be surprised at how much each homeowner paid towards each service. In my city the average bill for fire protection was from like from 100 to 300 depending on the values of your property. Paying 300 bucks of my taxes towards fire protection around the clock 365 days a year is well worth it to me.
Also in rural areas private companies dont really want to come in because theres not alot of money to be made, thats why most rural areas use volunteer depts.
Heres a thought, if you dont like paying 1500 a year for fire protection, why not form a volunteer dept in your area, then your cost will go way down. Come on get out there and do your community a great service for free. Heres your chance. So will you do it?
Let me tell you something, your always under this impression that if you privatize something that means your cost will be less, thats just not true, these private companies still charge a bundle, only differnece is the workers get paid less while the company ceo"s make bigger bucks.
My city turned our water over to a private company and now my bill is almost double what it used to be. Fuck this private shit
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.