Originally posted by WajomaWhy should I care? Privately owned businesses go belly up and get set up all the time in a capitalist system. If yours goes bankrupt because your state holds a poetry festival then maybe that's just the way it is. I am sure there will be some privately owned businesses in Nevada that will go under if the number of tourists visiting the state falls due to the cancellation of Festivals and other promotions of tourism. Some businesses survive, some fail.
If the tax burden happens to be the straw that breaks the back of my business that doesn't have anything to do with the states idea of poetry I should be just fine with that, be thankful as such.
Originally posted by WajomaGovernment in office. Promote tourism. Stimulate business. Support job creation. Facilitate wealth creation. Help region to compete in certain sectors. Do I want the people who don't get elected or who support the party that doesn't get elected to be able to cancel or veto all the above legitimate and common sensical economic roles of elected representatives? No.
You don't have a majic margin in mind? Want to vote on the margin? No formula for working out what margin is needed to declare something to be true, right, correct?
Originally posted by FMFThere's a good line, local council should have nothing to do with deciding cultural values i.e. music, art, poetry, crocheting, and all the rest.
Yes. But OK then. Propose a line item veto type system. I asked you to do so on another thread the other day but you didn't respond. How would the system work and how would it be enforced? Would you be willing to pay for the additional expense of such a complicated system.
Originally posted by WajomaPersonally I don't care if they do sponsor art and music and the rest. I don't see it as "deciding cultural values" in fact I see "culture" as being a far more resiliently diverse, vibrant and ever-changing thing than you apparently do. It would seem from your comments on this thread that you see "culture" as only the things you yourself privately want to 'pursue'. 'Culture' is also an agglomeration of things that communities might want to act collectively in order to preserve them.
There's a good line, local council should have nothing to do with deciding cultural values i.e. music, art, poetry, crocheting, and all the rest.
Actually, locally elected people taking some modest measures to preserve local cultural heritage or traditions seems to me to be just another part of cultural in its wider sense. Common sensical. Legitimate. Worthwhile, even if it is quite likely that they will eventually disappear/fall victim to commercial imperatives and we will surrender to homogeneity, dislocation from history and tradition, and a mish mash of rootless shabby shallow lowest common denominators.
Originally posted by FMFThere's the difference:
Why should I care? Privately owned businesses go belly up and get set up all the time in a capitalist system. If yours goes bankrupt because your state holds a poetry festival then maybe that's just the way it is. I am sure there will be some privately owned businesses in Nevada that will go under if the number of tourists visiting the state falls due to the cancellation of Festivals and other promotions of tourism. Some businesses survive, some fail.
I don't care if a business stands or falls on it's own merits, but if I thought that the funding for my poetry reading might have been the last straw for that business, that would be something to care about. If the company I work for can win a contract that is the difference between live or die for a competitors business, no problem, we just did it better. It's something called 'right' and 'wrong' and it is something to care about, it is not determined by a show of hands, the loudest bleating form the biggest mob of sheep who happen to be over a certain age living within certain boundary lines scratched in the dirt. You don't care about it, I do.
Originally posted by FMFA lot of don't cares from FMF in this thread, if only he could be convinced not to care to put his hand in other peoples pockets.
Personally I don't care if they do sponsor art and music and the rest. I don't see it as "deciding cultural values" in fact I see "culture" as being a far more resiliently diverse, vibrant and ever-changing thing than you apparently do. It would seem from your comments on this thread that you see "culture" as only the things you yourself privately want to 'pursu ...[text shortened]... nd tradition, and a mish mash of rootless shabby shallow lowest common denominators.
Originally posted by WajomaMy hand in your pocket? Not really. I expect you to pay your taxes just like I do. I don't expect us to always agree on how the money is spent. I am not overly interested in what you personally like and dislike, although I have indulged you on this thread a little. I would however be interested in you having a go at describing or proposing your unilaterally-opt-out-of-selected-taxes idea. How would the government administer, regulate and monitor such a 'line item veto' kind of tax collection system? Would you agree to pay tax to make a highly complex tax collection system possible?
A lot of don't cares from FMF in this thread, if only he could be convinced not to care to put his hand in other peoples pockets.
Originally posted by WajomaBusinesses come and go. Fragile ones - like the one you're hypothetically citing - will fail, only to be replaced by something stronger or an entity that is better able to compete. Taxes are merely just another reality that the market must accommodate.
I don't care if a business stands or falls on it's own merits, but if I thought that the funding for my poetry reading might have been the last straw for that business, that would be something to care about. If the company I work for can win a contract that is the difference between live or die for a competitors business, no problem, we just did it better. ...[text shortened]... ving within certain boundary lines scratched in the dirt. You don't care about it, I do.
If your business can't hack it while/due to paying their taxes, then some other business will take your place, if the market is big enough to make that business viable.
If you start looking at free market success and failures and trying to assign some 'morality' to bankruptcy and success - when businesses rise and fall all the time - then that is a matter for you. Your frequent assertions that the 'violence of poverty' is moral, that manipulating abject poverty to increase profit is 'moral' - makes it pretty clear that we do not agree on the definition of economic 'morality'.
Originally posted by WajomaWell I know of no one who argues that representative democracy is perfect. You propose that taxation and budgeting are decided and implemented by unelected people?
It's something called 'right' and 'wrong' and it is something to care about, it is not determined by a show of hands, the loudest bleating form the biggest mob of sheep who happen to be over a certain age living within certain boundary lines scratched in the dirt.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYou vote your hand into my pocket, so 'yes really' there are a hundred different ways you may want to obscure that but whether you put your hand directly into my pocket or you 'elect' someone to do your dirty work it amounts to the same thing and it's important that you admit that to yourself, good advice for any addict, admit to the reality of what you do.
My hand in your pocket? Not really. I expect you to pay your taxes just like I do. I don't expect us to always agree on how the money is spent. I am not overly interested in what you personally like and dislike, although I have indulged you on this thread a little. I would however be interested in you having a go at describing or proposing your unilaterally-opt- n system? Would you agree to pay tax to make a highly complex tax collection system possible?
This 'line item veto' thing is your idea, you put it up to shoot it down, the old tedious stawman cliche'. If we can't get past the concept that councils' role is NOT to fund some pet businesses and individuals at the expense of others...
...well, welly well well.
Originally posted by FMFBusinesses must be able to hack puppetry of the penis and be happy to support such ventures and feel encouraged in their endeavours knowing that they must pay for two guys to play with their penises on stage.
Businesses come and go. Fragile ones - like the one you're hypothetically citing - will fail, only to be replaced by something stronger or an entity that is better able to compete. Taxes are merely just another reality that the market must accommodate.
If your business can't hack it while/due to paying their taxes, then some other business will take your pla ...[text shortened]... - makes it pretty clear that we do not agree on the definition of economic 'morality'.
Hey, it's for your own good, FMF says so.
Originally posted by WajomaOK, well you quite clearly allude to the need for some kind of 'I won't pay tax for that particular thing' system in possibly hundreds of your posts. So if you don't want to expound upon it in detail fair enough.
This 'line item veto' thing is your idea, you put it up to shoot it down, the old tedious stawman cliche'.
As I have said several times, it's the questions you refuse to answer and the things you refuse to say or explain that tell us more about the relevancy or possible efficacy of your ideology than any of the handful of simplistic nostrums you offer to this forum.
On March 2nd on the "Biological Basis of Rights" thread you did say this: You should pay for the services you use, so if you believe yourself to be in credit you are morally justified in evading taxes.
It seems you are backing away from this now and trying to claim that my request for you to explain how it would actually work in the real world is a "strawman". I guess I have come across a significant bit of your ideology that you simply do not want to account for.
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaWell some people don't want so much spent on defence contracts and military adventures. And, my word, I'm pretty sure that money forked out on missiles dwarfs arts spending by something with 4 or 5 extra-zeroes-on-the-end.
Businesses must be able to hack puppetry of the penis and be happy to support such ventures and feel encouraged in their endeavours knowing that they must pay for two guys to play with their penises on stage.
I wonder how many flimsy businesses have gone by the wayside - victims of 'wrong', as you put it - because of the taxes that were spent on defence.
However, the battle between penises and missiles is best adjudicated in a democratic arena, imperfect as it may be, rather than by some kind of mysterious tax evasion/opt-out thing that you seem to want but seem not to want to explain.
I'll wade in here. I wonder, if the festival benefits so many businesses, why can't these businesses promote it out of their pockets? Afterall, someone in a different part of the state (or nation if it is funded federally as the OP indicates) is deriving very little economic benefit from funding this. I don't think it's right for taxpayers to pay for promotion of a festival that benefits only a certain group of people. I don't agree with Wajoma on everything, but on this issue, I think he is spot on. When you use tax money to favor one business (or a group of businesses) over others, then you are making a value judgement.
Originally posted by FMFIt's really a question of believing or not that government spending needs to be curbed. Any government spending can be argued to be "needed". In fact, any government cuts will be met with people screaming in the streets demanding that their money supply be returned. The real question becomes, can the US federal government continue with massive deficits as it has today? if not, then there is no choice but to make cuts and I dare say that Cowboy poetry should be the first to go.
Well? Is the Nevada Cowboy Festival important to the Nevada tourism industry, or not? How many small and medium sized business derive crucial income from it? Does the State obtain nett economic benefit from it or not? Should it be cut?