TV and credit cards
Contributor
fast, could your definition of subsidy be applied to compulsory auto insurance in which a claim is never made or perhaps the "uninsured motorist" portion of the premium?
I don't know, but I've absolutely hated it with a passion. I have no qualms with being held financially liable and accountable for my actions, and if the government would be so inclined to withhold money (up to a predetermined reasonable limit) to cover costs attributable to what might be one day attributable to me, then fine, begrudgingly, but after I have poured in money beyond that reasonable limit, do not line the pockets of the for profit companies, and do not use my funds held on my behalf for what I might do to cover costs that are attributable to others.fast, could your definition of subsidy be applied to compulsory auto insurance in which a claim is never made or perhaps the "uninsured motorist" portion of the premium?
Convoluted is arguing that breaking into someone's house and taking a Pepsi out their fridge yet paying their light bill before leaving somehow justifies my actions because they benefitted.
- - - Updated - - -
Why can't I claim no benefit from a bridge I do not use?
Because trucks bring goods across the bridge you buy.
Convoluted is arguing that breaking into someone's house and taking a Pepsi out their fridge yet paying their light bill before leaving somehow justifies my actions because they benefitted.
- - - Updated - - -
Because trucks bring goods across the bridge you buy.
I did not ask them to do that. That was their choice. The cost of the bridge should be included in the cost of the goods. The trucker profits from transporting them.
...There is no design allowing us to elect out of the costs to our benefits...
I don't know about water. Many in my area rely on a well or a pond for their water supply. I've seen and understand the necessity of forcing people off a septic system and tie into sewer lines. But water? I would be interested in knowing the reason the county/city had for forcing people on the public water supply.Working with others isn't really optional. The amount of help you need to stay in your own house on your own land and mind your own business is fairly substantial. Obviously we can have different solutions to how people cooperate, but simply shutting your door and pretending that people are only there when you need them is considerably more difficult, and relies on other people supporting that lifetstyle.
In the case of the water, the reason it was compulsory is probably to do with public health concerns, rather than merely supply. It's worth everyone supporting a universal water supply, so the community as a whole doesn't get sick from people who aren't connected. Without universal subscription to it, they might not be able to afford to do it at all.
I did not ask them to do that. That was their choice. The cost of the bridge should be included in the cost of the goods. The trucker profits from transporting them.
I'm not sure which hat you want me to wear. It doesn't seem to matter which side people argue for. In the end, people are going to list the pros & cons and qualitatively judge their position to be the superior choice-and we'll wind up paying.
Let me tell you what's interesting. There is no design allowing us to elect out of the costs to our benefits. I don't want to be a moocher that enjoys the benefits without chipping in on the costs. There's just no choice in the matter as to the benefits; likewise, there's no choice in the matter concerning the costs. I'm happy with a volunteer fire department, and I'm happy to help out to the extent I can, and I'm the first someone can call on when they're in need of something. But, don't force me to pay higher taxes to support a paid fire department that doesn't even service my area. And no, I don't particularly feel so thrifty as to pay for a bridge that I will never use. Shoot, not only won't I use the bridge, I don't want the bridge, so of course I don't feel like I should service the costs.
Awe, but there will somehow someway be a benefit forced upon me to which others will then feel I should help finance. Figures. Had the people with their cost imposing selves never successfully accomplished their goals, we wouldn't be in this mess. Don't get me wrong. If group B wants a bridge, who am I to deny them? Go ahead. May they knock themselves out. Can't afford it without me chipping in? Here's an idea, make me decide between paying or moving away. Real thoughtful of them eh!
Of course, I don't truly hold that opinion on matters such as bridges, as there probably truly is some justifiable reason that even I can accept, but careful we must be when applying such things to every benefit forcing idea that comes our way. There must surely be some things that would in fact benefit a small select group of people that ought not have its costs spread amongst everyone merely to reduce the costs just so they can benefit, even if by chance we, as a community are somehow and very indirectly benefitting from.
Take away my dirt roads and wonder why I'm using the pavement ... Damn bastards, lol.
Yeah, I thought it would come to that, sooner or later.
I think there is a grammar problem here. Group B receives the money. They are not paying, so it is not an expense to them. The per/person expense is simply arithmetic and not related to from where the money was collected.
But, I ask again, what does Group A gain by not helping Group B. What is their incentive to refuse to participate?
There's some kind of problem here. Maybe I don't know the inner workings of a subsidy. I suppose there might be subsidies where one group pays nothing, but I figure often times, there are subsidies where both groups pay.
What does group A gain? They get to retain (!)--their money. Take my well-water example. I would get to keep my $75 if I didn't have to support the neighborhoods the whole damn thing was truly started over.
What does group A gain? They get to retain (!)--their money. .
Why does opportunity matter?The question is: Did Group B have the same opportunity to gain wealth as Group A?
Is there a level playing field?
If we look at a concrete example, in the US, and everywhere, it is far easier to use capital to gain wealth than to use labor. Returns from capital exceed returns from personal labor.
What I meant was that I'm not upset to see others more financially well-off than myself, even if they were born to a family of doctors making $250,000 a year a piece. I don't mind good hearted social policies that tilt us to equality. But, while we do that, we shouldn't just take from the upper middle class to relieve the financial burdens of the lower middle class.It isn't success to be born to the right parents. It is pure luck.
And of course we have an obligation to make the playing field as level as possible.
The cost of having water supplied to residents and businesses of the county is spread across all the taxpayers who pay property taxes.
There are many people that don't benefit yet have to pay.
Wow.But we noticed that you already filled your pocket without wanting to discuss that.
I certainly benefit.
I was privately educated and still paid taxes to support state schools. I have to pay taxes in more than one country, and get taxed on transferring money from one country to another. I paid huge taxes when I bought my house, when I bought my uncle's house. I pay for roads despite not having a car, for the upkeep of local parks I don't visit, cemetaries that contain noone I know, and war archives I don't care about. Very little about this is fair in isolation.
But then I enjoy national electricity, sewerage, water, rail transport, road, police, civil justice and monetary system that never would have been possible to organise on an entirely voluntary basis. I pay more than my fair share of tax, because I get paid more than my fair share of money, in an attempt to incentivise me to do particular kinds of job. It seems like a silly system to me, but it means I end up with much more money that most people, for working the same hours.
Despite paying more tax than most for services I tend to use less than most, I still recognise that the system is violently tilted in my favour.
Wow.But we noticed that you already filled your pocket without wanting to discuss that.
Exactly. As you've probably discerned, what you're up against in this thread is a level of smug reality avoidance that is rarely achieved without religious motivation. What it takes for you to achieve the level of patience you display, here and in thread after thread, I have no idea. But I'm in awe.Wow.But we noticed that you already filled your pocket without wanting to discuss that.
What she will probably go to her grave without ever having grasped about her intended targets is that she was projecting onto them, too.I'm sorry. Forgive me for sounding attacking. I was not actually picturing YOU when I said that, but the nasty hypocrite Republican rich-boys and their poor rural fan-boy sycophants who complain about welfare.
Seriously, I am sorry to have projected all that emotion onto you!
My apology was sincere.What she will probably go to her grave without ever having grasped about her intended targets is that she was projecting onto them, too.I'm sorry. Forgive me for sounding attacking. I was not actually picturing YOU when I said that, but the nasty hypocrite Republican rich-boys and their poor rural fan-boy sycophants who complain about welfare.
Seriously, I am sorry to have projected all that emotion onto you!