Job and life delayed my response.
“Sneering down from an ivory tower” I like that and will use it as my title for a little bit. Thank you.
I would posit that I am very knowledgeable about the subject, despite your interpretation. In fact, one could suggest mocking doesn’t necessarily require such effort.
Please point out where I said there was a problem with heroin for all. A government profiting off the sale is my issue. Using profits from these transactions to fund government would not appear to be prudent.
What is the difference between giant pharma and street criminals? From a business standpoint there is no difference – sell more, make more. We are all probably familiar with the Sackler family, Purdue Pharma, and Oxycontin. Or, the insulin issues created by Big Pharma. Stepping back and actually thinking about it: Big Pharma also sells pharmaceuticals which help with blood pressure, cholesterol, pain relief, cancer. Your local corner pusher does not usually deal in those. Those medicines have extended lives and improved the quality of life for millions. That is one huge difference.
I am not certain how to take your third point. You are saying I am shaming or forcing others into ‘pitching in for the greater good’.
Income taxes account for roughly half of revenue in Canada and slightly below in the US. Canada’s defence budget is 7% of spending. Eliminating it won’t save very much. Governments have a difficult time cutting spending because citizens like their own special perks (‘extras’?). The top 3 in Canada are Old Age Security, Health Transfer, and Fiscal Equalization. Cut those constituents off and see what happens.
There are two ways to balance a budget – increase revenues or reduce spending. I would suggest a combination of both would be practical. Increase corporate taxes and implement a more progressive (i.e., higher rates for larger incomes, lower rates for smaller incomes) individual tax code.
Competing with religion, government is either the first- or second-best scheme for generating income.
Oh. Job and life delayed your response. Good thing you pointed that out in your post because the whole world just waiting for you to reply. Do you posit that you only one with a job and a life to delay your replies?
I see you haven't replied to my posts that I quoted you in
@Straight Shooter and
@Luxman threads either last few weeks, how important your job and life must be.
I would posit as you posit that you like to point on how knowledgable you are on any subject and I also posit that your knowledge is so great that one such as yourself does not necessarily require much effort to mock others.
What an interesting change of tone from you. You want me to please point out where you said there was a problem with heroin for all.
Well, ok. Here is your quote below:
If you eliminate income and property taxes, how do you pay for a functioning government? Well, other than profiting off selling drugs to citizens. I can see the slogans now:
- "Affordable Heroin for All",
- "Cocaine! She don't lie."
- "Meth. We're on it." (kudos to South Dakota for that one)
Without taxes, what amenities would be available? Fuck your Old Age Pension, have some smack.
Oh. I see. You didn't say there was a problem. You were only mocking and scoffing at my ideas from your ivory tower. No sarcasm there, you're only wondering out loud with great concern that without taxes there'd be nothing left for you - whoops, not just you but all the poor and needy, what a caring soul you are!
So, according to your quote above, governments and drug companies like pharmaceuticals do so much good with their profits that the harm they cause is acceptable to you. But the local street pusher doesn't do enough good for you to accept them - well maybe if they donate some of their proceeds to the needy, would that be enough for you and the others up the your ivory tower to accept? Ever thought that the money they make from selling drugs might be feeding their needy families already?
Or how about before the kind and generous government legalized weed, many cancer patients had no access to it but from your local street pusher? So back then the local street pusher providing the weed that cancer patients need is doing enough good for you to accept. How kind of you all in your ivory towers to render kind judgements upon others. Is this the huge difference you speak of in your quote above? Maybe the government should criminalize Tylenol, then when it's so rare that the street price is so expensive that your street pushers can profit, they will provide it to people who need it - and that will be such a good deed you and those in the ivory towers will accept them.
You seem to agree with me that the are two ways to balance a budget - increase revenue or cut spending.
Well what the problem? You say governments deal with trillion dollar budgets, doesn't any other company deal with budgets? It's just numbers, there's nothing to be afraid of, whether the number are big or small math is to math. Yet you warn in your quote - cut those constituents off and see what happens!
Will the world end? There was a time without income tax only 100 odd years ago in america before world war 1, seemed people were living fine then.
So you say half a countries revenue is from income/property tax, so what your point? You think it's impossible to phase out? Well why not try before scoffing at the idea.
When prohibitions against alcohol/gambling existed people that provided those things made profits, now that governments have taken over those businesses did they use the new revenue to decrease income/property taxes from 50% of the countries revenue to 49.99% or whatever number you think it's worth? Nope, because people like you scoff at the idea of reducing taxes, you yourself said in your quote above - without taxes what amenities will be available? Fuck pension, have some more smack.
Why not consider ideas instead of mocking them? Are you afraid no one will pay their taxes and you'll have less amenities? That is what I mean by shaming others to pay taxes, the forcing is when people like you applaud people going to jail for not paying taxes - going to jail is government using force to make people pay taxes.
So to summarize, all I'm saying is find new revenues to phase out income/property taxes over time.
I don't have the perfect answer on how to find new revenue, I don't work for the government so it's not my job - so you don't have to use sarcasm when I suggest ways to consider on how to find new revenues.
The bottom line is that any company big or small can diversify their revenue streams and reduce spending too, the governments of the world are no different.
Even Alberta and Texas can diversify away from oil, it just takes time and effort.
So, it is possible for governments to diversify their revenues away from taxes, it takes reimagining - just like defunding police takes reimagining.
