The Not Happy Thread

Urgh. I hate it when people say that kind of stuff. Taxes are not bad. It is exactly like buying a thing. If you don't want it to happen, vote against it. But if you like an idea, you can't expect it to happen for free. It's like people just think; 'taxes! Hisss!' automatically but there's no reason we should consider it differently to any other cost in terms of it's morality.Sorry, this might not be relevant. i just really hate it when taxes are represented as if they're a problem.

 

No, its not. If I don't like something, I can vote against it. But, if I don't vote with the majority, I can be forced to pay for something I don't want.

 

Well, it's politics. We have to decide on things. And nothing is ever going to be popular with everyone. People like to ignore this, but prison is oppression of freedom. We oppress freedom when we don't like things that people do. It's the same thing with taxes. We decide we need something, sometimes people aren't going to agree with the expenditure of their money. But the money has to come from somewhere.
If you truly don't like those grants though. Then that's a different point. I'm not sure I like funding specific people with taxes either. I think America should be using more tax money for healthcare and education, because they're fundamental human rights; why should they be unequal, why should the rich be cared for more? But I'm a socialist, that's expected.

 

So, we agree. The government forces us to pay for things we don't want. Incidentally, while I want everyone to have stellar health care and education, I don't believe putting it into the hands of the government gets us there.

 

So you'd prefer the businesses continue to produce unequal results? Look at Norway or Sweden, there's no problem with making it free other than taxes. And if you believe in something you should be prepared to pay for it others it's a meaningless value.

 

I will admit that there here a hint of jealousy in my rant. I mean who wouldn't want to get paid to do what they love and make a profit on top of that. Still, in the end it is a choice to write and be in a self imposed poverty and I feel that money would be better used giving to people who are truly in poverty and starving.

I can see this is a pointless argument though and I can't stop what other will ask for as much as I can force people to donate money to the truly needed and to stop eating meat.

 

I'm in the last place an introvert wants to be: surrounded by strangers for hours. I'm about to have a mental breakdown.

 

And chronic back problems. Everytime people say "you're too young" I wonder what's wrong with me. I've wondered if it's adverse childhood experiences. On the ACE study I score really high. But I lived a fast, intense life for most of my twenties, sorta rockstar style. So sometimes I think that makes up for it, if I die in the next 10-20 years. But yeah, pain does suck.

 

It's called being a member of the community as well as being an individual. This would be a miserable place for all of us if we all acted only like independent individuals. You might not want to pay for police someone else needs, maybe someone else doesn't want to pay for the fire department you need. Maybe you don't like paying for car insurance, but the guy you run into begs to differ. If you don't like it, move to the wilderness in Alaska or something.

 

This is a different issue. Unfortunately it turns out when you put education into the hands of the private sector you can get worse results. And one reason student debt is so high is because greedy lenders are charging as much interest as they can get away with.

 

I have absolutely no problem paying for police, fire, vaccinations, or education for the community. This is a straw man argument. I know that if my neighbor's house catches fire, the fire can spread to my house. Seventy percent of fire departments in our country are volunteer. Government involvement and red tape actually interferes with these brave men and women doing their charity.

 

But government involvement also means that they can train them and regulate them. Without government involvement in services, it would be of unreliable quality and decency.

 

People are going to act like rational economic entities. We shouldn't act like it is some surprise. The guys in government who created the laws which made these sort of student loans possible undoubtedly knew this would happen.

 

They were getting trained already. What was the point of regulating them?

 

Which is exactly why the people who support business control of education are the ones I don't like. It should be in the hands of people with a vested interest in the people, not their business. The government simply has more obligations to care about public interest. Why the hell would a business be more altruistic?

 

Regulations make them work more efficiently with the system around them and put additional levels of standards on. Regulations do what regulations are supposed to do. They keep things under control rather than let them free to potentially create problems. We regulate things because we'd like those things to have rules.

 

So, if they don't meet the regulations, they should be shut down and their community go without a fire department?
If a tool making company pays off the right politicians, couldn't they make a requirement of regulation that the fire department use a specific tool configuration which is available only by that tool making company? In other words, how do you guarantee that the regulations are designed purely to improve fire fighting?

 

Businesses don't have monopolize. They are competing with each other.

 

It's not a straw man, they were just hypotheticals. Feel free to tell us which taxes you do and don't approve of.

Being in the occupational health and safety field, I beg to differ.

 

Becausae the regulations would be public. But companies are private entities. Sometimes you need to be in a certain government agency to look at the information you need.

 

And that makes them more trustworthy how? To repeat, the business's interest is in their own employees, they're actually legally obligated to support those people. That means screwing over customers is somewhat required. They're not going to be doing the best thing for you; charity is profitless.

 

If a company acts in an untrustworthy manner, I can take my business elsewhere. That will reduce their profit. Their responsibility is to their stake holders.

 

That and a fiver will get you a cup of coffee.

 

Yep. But is being responsible for serious inequality "untrustworthy"? Apparently not. Americans are happy with your system that kills poor people. It's disgraceful that people potentially live or die based on their bank accounts. All patients should be created equal. You shouldn't have to pay for your life.

 

Wut?