taxes don't steal from people, people steal from people

So exchanged money for goods and services is a tax now?

If you dont want to mail something, then you dont need to be "taxed" by the mail man.

Thw mail man is not incharge of transactions.
He is in charge of delivery.
The stamp is a receipt, a proof of purchase.
A ticket.
If a mailman had to handle transactions it would be ridiculously inefficient and open for either  corruption or robbery.



You are spectacular.

Quote from: Lorddave on April 10, 2024, 11:04:24 AM

Saying a product (stamps) is a tax, just made me not want to bother replying to the rest if your rant.

Remember history? Or is it too much of a bother to think outside your own bias filter?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765

So under British occupation, you're paying in for stamped paper in order to use certain goods and services. Now why does this sound familiar?

Oh wait, don't we need a stamp or embossment to prove that legal documents are legal? Aren't witnesses required to pay money to notarize things?
And aren't stamps required to send even the smallest parcel of mail?

If mail were based on a distance & weight flat price, this would be one thing, or if stamps were a regular product that can be sold at competitive prices, that's another. But nope, stamps (like money) made by someone other that the US government is considered a counterfeit, and instead of prices being dictated by markets, they are determined by regulations.
https://about.usps.com/newsroom/national-releases/2024/0409-usps-recommends-new-prices-for-july-2024.htm

That. Is. A. Tax.

They file with the Postal Regulatory Commission, and they nationwide raise the price of postage.

Corn Flakes (a product, rather than a tax) does not increase based on a commission. It doesn't use government regulation to reset the price. Because it is a product, real markets determine the value. Walmart may charge one price, and Trader Joe's another. Hell, the same chain may charge a different price in a different town or state to compete with existing stores.

If you could competitively buy any adhesive stamp from any store at any price, that would not be a tax. But the monopoly on stamps means that you cannot get any discount or deal. You are paying a tax for the service of mail delivery.

Quote

I have studied this thread and I still don't know if taxes steal from people.

So, the simple question you ask yourself, "Did I buy my taxes?"

If the government sold whiskey in competition with other alcohol sellers, not a tax. They grow the wheat, they run the still? That's a government-owned business, not a government tax. Only get to show from ABC or package stores? Tax. Add $0.15 to whiskey sales? Tax.

A tax is something that unlike goods, is not bought. It's paid for under duress, it's payment for something unearned. In a funny scene in a movie called L.A. Story, this guy when they are coming out of a restaurant says "Hi my name is Bob. I'll be your robber." That's a tax. It's a purchase that nobody wants, but everyone expects.

Yes, taxes steal from people.

Do we have a choice in what taxes or how much we pay? No? Then it's a theft.

There's problems with that.

1. The stamps go to funding the US Postal Service.  Thus, its no different than the stamps UPS puts on their packages.
2. They ARE a flat rate based on weight and distance.  Have you never mailed anything bigger than a letter outside the US?  Distance for parcels anywhere in the US is 1 rate with weight classes increasing the amount of stamps (price) you need.  Once you go beyond the US borders, the price increases per stamp.  You can't mail a letter from New York to England without more stamps.
3. What do you call UPS or Fedex when they take your money to mail a letter and put a label on it?  That's a stamp with a barcode.

When market-based products (such as food or clothing or wine or gas (despite wine and gas being taxed, it is still governed by market values)) are sold, market competition drives prices down. That prices are high in those areas has to do with scarcity and cost of business, but is high despite things. Business want to make a profit but they also to a large extent want to undercut other businesses.

When you go to buy tax products, they inflate directly based on the government rate of inflation. There is literally nothing to drive the price of stamps down, so one day, a single stamp might be as much as $75. It is only reasonably cheap because the government deigns that it be so. If government wanted your money now, they could make it so prices of postage are absurd in comparison to other prices. They could even justify this as "preventing the post office from bankruptcy."

1. The stamps go to funding the US Postal Service.  Thus, its no different than the stamps UPS puts on their packages.

They go to lining the pockets of politicians.

Those aren't stamps. When you go to UPS online, they tell you that they offer USPS stamps. Where are the UPS stamps? Where are the Fedex stamps? Oh ummm, those are illegal.

Just as restaurant do not make soft drinks but rather buy the tap from Coke or Pepsi, the UPS does not make stamps but sub-lets them from USPS. The difference is that I could technically buy a soda fountain, make an orange and a lime concentrate, and sell Orange SMASH! and XTREME Lime in my restaurant. I'd probably need a special soda license for liability of selling homemade soda.

But the USPS does the equivalent of saying nobody can make "soda". There aren't any homebrew stamps. They have actual security features to prevent makig much cheaper stamps.

2. They ARE a flat rate based on weight and distance.  Have you never mailed anything bigger than a letter outside the US?  Distance for parcels anywhere in the US is 1 rate with weight classes increasing the amount of stamps (price) you need.  Once you go beyond the US borders, the price increases per stamp.  You can't mail a letter from New York to England without more stamps.
3. What do you call UPS or Fedex when they take your money to mail a letter and put a label on it?  That's a stamp with a barcode.

You're describing international prices. That's apples and oranges. National prices for letter delivery are a "flat" rate... that keeps climbing. Rather that charging a more reasonable distance and weight price (with regular letters delivered locally being free), we have a fakely cheap stamp system that is supposed to convince us that it's supporting the mail service. But bailouts are supporting the mail service.

Those barcode stamp things are printed using tools from the USPS. UPS and FedEx are private franchises of a very public goverment-run business. At any time, just as government could raise prices of stamps to outrageous levels, the Postal Service could simply require all private mail systems to be approved.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/corporations-dont-pay-corporate-taxes-people-do/

Interesting. It's almost like something I've been saying before.

First, corporations do not pay any corporate tax — individuals do. That is because companies pass on their costs. Some of the tax is paid by consumers, who pay higher prices. Company employees pay some of the tax through lower wages. And investors’ retirement accounts pay some of the tax through lower returns.

So, while it might be good politics to stick it to big corporations — or at least to posture that way in front of voters and television cameras — a corporate tax-rate hike would not accomplish its intended goal. Instead, taxes are paid by individuals who then get less for their money, receive smaller paychecks, and have a harder time saving for retirement.

The Tax Foundation’s Stephen J. Entin estimated in 2017 that labor pays 70 percent or more of the corporate tax. Differences aside, these studies share a common conclusion: Ultimately, corporations themselves pay no corporate tax.

No matter how much you might want to, you simply can't tax corporations. You wind up taxing yourself.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/corporations-dont-pay-corporate-taxes-people-do/

Interesting. It's almost like something I've been saying before.

Quote

First, corporations do not pay any corporate tax — individuals do. That is because companies pass on their costs. Some of the tax is paid by consumers, who pay higher prices. Company employees pay some of the tax through lower wages. And investors’ retirement accounts pay some of the tax through lower returns.

So, while it might be good politics to stick it to big corporations — or at least to posture that way in front of voters and television cameras — a corporate tax-rate hike would not accomplish its intended goal. Instead, taxes are paid by individuals who then get less for their money, receive smaller paychecks, and have a harder time saving for retirement.

Quote

The Tax Foundation’s Stephen J. Entin estimated in 2017 that labor pays 70 percent or more of the corporate tax. Differences aside, these studies share a common conclusion: Ultimately, corporations themselves pay no corporate tax.

No matter how much you might want to, you simply can't tax corporations. You wind up taxing yourself.

Then corporate tax is eliminated and replaced with Sales Tax!

How is that working out?

Bumba would rather a society much like medival europe with lords and barons.

Then corporate tax is eliminated and replaced with Sales Tax!

How is that working out?

I wouldn't know. Since about 1919 or so, we have paid income taxes.

Whenever a sales tax-only plan is proposed, the raving lunatics in power always scream "Think of the poor! Sales tax cuts their earnings."

Okay, I thought of the poor. Abolish sales taxes on groceries. Since the poor predominantly spend their money buying food, they can save money. Especially since every year, they can choose to save (or not) instead of filling out time-wasting paperwork to get a "refund" on something that was borrowed from them to begin with!

Meanwhile, the millionaires and billionaires you hate so much for avoiding paying their fair share now pay their fair share. Why are you still opposing this?

You think government is necessary. Living in a small town, I can tell you that only the barest form is necessary. You have cops, libraries, schools, and a post office. Some stuff can be left to private businesses (roads for instance), some stuff can be left to charities, and some can be done by individuals. For that matter, cops can be replaced by people pooling wealth toward a bounty to catch known criminals.

Bumba would rather a society much like medival europe with lords and barons.

This shows how little you understand about me.

The feudal system is the precursor of the modern rent system.
I would also do away with property tax. When you own land, you own it.

The taxes we pay could be donation-based. That is, voluntary payment for things like trash collection, better roads, etc. The government tries to hard to take things. The public would give them money if they acted more like a service organization. Why take what you can make voluntary?

Like this: "Please send check or cash taxes in an envelope with your address if you want trash pickup." Yes, simple as that. You can do this for literally any service provided by the government. They want it, they can send an envelope for it. If not, they don't get that service.

This shows how little you understand about me.

Once again showing your inability to understand words and lack of selfawareness because you aee a fucking moron.

The correct syntax  and inflection would be:

There is little to understand about bulma.

Quote from: Lorddave on April 29, 2024, 04:55:21 AM

Then corporate tax is eliminated and replaced with Sales Tax!

How is that working out?

I wouldn't know. Since about 1919 or so, we have paid income taxes.

Whenever a sales tax-only plan is proposed, the raving lunatics in power always scream "Think of the poor! Sales tax cuts their earnings."

Okay, I thought of the poor. Abolish sales taxes on groceries. Since the poor predominantly spend their money buying food, they can save money. Especially since every year, they can choose to save (or not) instead of filling out time-wasting paperwork to get a "refund" on something that was borrowed from them to begin with!

Meanwhile, the millionaires and billionaires you hate so much for avoiding paying their fair share now pay their fair share. Why are you still opposing this?

You think government is necessary. Living in a small town, I can tell you that only the barest form is necessary. You have cops, libraries, schools, and a post office. Some stuff can be left to private businesses (roads for instance), some stuff can be left to charities, and some can be done by individuals. For that matter, cops can be replaced by people pooling wealth toward a bounty to catch known criminals.

As I have said before: Groceries don't have tax except in a few states.  Like yours.

Also, most of your libraries, cops, and schools have state and federal funding, also.  If you didn't know.

Finally: you really want roads privatized?  How would they male a profit?  And why would you want untrained cops?  American cops are barely trained as it is and you want it worse?

And how about places other than a small town?

They want it, they can send an envelope for it. If not, they don't get that service.

How you plan to logistically police who pays foe oublic servuce and who doesnt?

Aah yes.
You didnt plan because youee a fucking moron?

Your "shared pooled payment for police" is literally how taxes work.


Fucking idiot.

Kabooy! Remember what Oscar Wilde said about arguing with stupid people.

Or was it Mark Twain?

Read between the lines.


Edit:
Ohnm   that was the other post.



Anywho
No not arguing.
This guy was stupid i soight to try and understand him and get him to think.
but is now confirmed he just a pos.
So just here to let him know in as sassy a way possible

As I have said before: Groceries don't have tax except in a few states.  Like yours.

Also, most of your libraries, cops, and schools have state and federal funding, also.  If you didn't know.

Finally: you really want roads privatized?  How would they male a profit?  And why would you want untrained cops?  American cops are barely trained as it is and you want it worse?

And how about places other than a small town?

Privatized roads in the past were funded by certain roads being tolled. If you've been to New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, or even Virginia, you may have seen one of these (the only one I can think of in VA is Powhite Parkway).

Once again, you think the government should make a profit. The government is not a business. It is (depending on who you ask) either a service organization or a confidence game. In the former case, it should be running at the bare minimum for sustainability, and all involved are volunteers with a real job. Career politicians long since should have gotten said real job and stopped trying to make money off the public. Considering that some Senators and Congress actually work only a few months each year (about 165 days vs the average taxpayer having in some case no breaks in an entire year), it's time we treated this as what it actually is, not volunteers doing a good service, but con artists trying to weasel money from the public. FFS, they get paid vacation time funded by your taxes.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/heres-congress-works/story?id=24810354
You know how we could afford everyone to have tax breaks? Easy, we just cut the salary of these people.

As far as I'm concerned, if you want to live in a big city, your taxes can probably be run by a mayor. Your mayor can use these voluntary offerings to place those green trash cans I see all over cities. His bureaucrats figure out who is and isn't paying for certain services, and act accordingly. Meanwhile, in my small town, we don't have those things. I drive to the dump, or I go and toss trash in a bin, and run before someone sees me like normal people.  You stop paying for trash pickup, they simply take you off the route and repossess your green bins. Yes, I know those are for recycling but you get the idea. It's a very very simple matter to connect payment with addresses.

Voluntaryism works.

The income tax hasn't worked, and you know it by the sheer amount of effort you put into complaining about rich businessmen. Fact: there is not a single person who loopholes their way out of sales tax. You could even set up an incentive system where people can pay more taxes if they want more perks.

But here you are, locked into a one solution (yours, of course) mindset, even though the solution doesn't work and even mass media like VOX know it.
https://www.vox.com/money/2024/3/13/24086102/billionaires-wealthy-tax-avoidance-loopholes
That probably only scratches the surface at how many ways rich people avoid income taxes. Yet you're stuck on this "solution". Think of something else!

Quote from: Lorddave on May 14, 2024, 06:12:49 AM

As I have said before: Groceries don't have tax except in a few states.  Like yours.

Also, most of your libraries, cops, and schools have state and federal funding, also.  If you didn't know.

Finally: you really want roads privatized?  How would they male a profit?  And why would you want untrained cops?  American cops are barely trained as it is and you want it worse?

And how about places other than a small town?

Privatized roads in the past were funded by certain roads being tolled. If you've been to New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, or even Virginia, you may have seen one of these (the only one I can think of in VA is Powhite Parkway).

Once again, you think the government should make a profit. The government is not a business. It is (depending on who you ask) either a service organization or a confidence game. In the former case, it should be running at the bare minimum for sustainability, and all involved are volunteers with a real job. Career politicians long since should have gotten said real job and stopped trying to make money off the public. Considering that some Senators and Congress actually work only a few months each year (about 165 days vs the average taxpayer having in some case no breaks in an entire year), it's time we treated this as what it actually is, not volunteers doing a good service, but con artists trying to weasel money from the public. FFS, they get paid vacation time funded by your taxes.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/heres-congress-works/story?id=24810354
You know how we could afford everyone to have tax breaks? Easy, we just cut the salary of these people.

As far as I'm concerned, if you want to live in a big city, your taxes can probably be run by a mayor. Your mayor can use these voluntary offerings to place those green trash cans I see all over cities. His bureaucrats figure out who is and isn't paying for certain services, and act accordingly. Meanwhile, in my small town, we don't have those things. I drive to the dump, or I go and toss trash in a bin, and run before someone sees me like normal people.  You stop paying for trash pickup, they simply take you off the route and repossess your green bins. Yes, I know those are for recycling but you get the idea. It's a very very simple matter to connect payment with addresses.

Voluntaryism works.

The income tax hasn't worked, and you know it by the sheer amount of effort you put into complaining about rich businessmen. Fact: there is not a single person who loopholes their way out of sales tax. You could even set up an incentive system where people can pay more taxes if they want more perks.

But here you are, locked into a one solution (yours, of course) mindset, even though the solution doesn't work and even mass media like VOX know it.
https://www.vox.com/money/2024/3/13/24086102/billionaires-wealthy-tax-avoidance-loopholes
That probably only scratches the surface at how many ways rich people avoid income taxes. Yet you're stuck on this "solution". Think of something else!

And you have no grasp of reality.
You want every road in America to be a toll road? How much would it cost you to drive from home to work if you had to pay for every road you drove on?  Every street?

The government isn't a business and unless you've been avoiding it: they are not making a profit.  Haven't for a long time.

Senators and such work 365.  They may not be in DC all those days but that's a legal requirement.  Senators and representatives must spent a certain amount of time in the area they represent.  I think its 6 months of the year.  Working there, you know, with the people who elect them.  But sure, have it all volunteer.  I'm sure having no income will save the government a hundred million dollars a year and certainly not cause any issues... >_>. Seriously, I did the numners and if you cut all their salaries to 0, every taxpayer would get like a dollar tax saving. 



How many people would pay taxes volunterily?  Would you?  And how much?
And guess what?  Mayors DO handle taxes for cities and they do stop pickup of garbage for non-payers.  So that already happens. 
But hey, go toss it in the dump.  Or a taxpayer's bin you leech!  I'm sure the people who work at the dump are happy volunteers that don't need to be paid. 

As for sales tax loopholes: boy are you an idiot. 
Alot of people have done it.  Hell, I've done it.  I've used a loophole to pay 0 sales tax.  Wanna know how?  I lived in New York, which has sales tax.  I drove to New Jersey, which doesn't have sales tax.  Bought stuff there, tax free, then ... And here's the loophole... Brought it back to New York!  Same thing happens with international shopping.  I've done it between Norway and Sweden.  People do it between USA and Mexico.

Also, plenty of people try to create a tax exempt company, which exempts them from sales tax.  Mostly political action companies (501c i think) or religious exemptions.  So yeah, people do cheat on sales tax. 

As per title of this thread, theres a difference between how-its-intended vs how-it-is.

But since youre a fucking moron, well, youre a fucking moron.

For everyone else - we can laugh at the fucking moron because we know that toll roads built using PPP method are owned by corporations and corporations when given a monopoly of a utility, have opportunity to gouge, because people can be greed.

And corportations dont need to be local, so local money is slowly (quickly if they really greedy) drained from the community and shipped off somewhere else.

Fucking moron.

And you have no grasp of reality.
You want every road in America to be a toll road? How much would it cost you to drive from home to work if you had to pay for every road you drove on?  Every street?

The government isn't a business and unless you've been avoiding it: they are not making a profit.  Haven't for a long time.

Senators and such work 365.  They may not be in DC all those days but that's a legal requirement.  Senators and representatives must spent a certain amount of time in the area they represent.  I think its 6 months of the year.  Working there, you know, with the people who elect them.  But sure, have it all volunteer.  I'm sure having no income will save the government a hundred million dollars a year and certainly not cause any issues... >_>. Seriously, I did the numners and if you cut all their salaries to 0, every taxpayer would get like a dollar tax saving. 



How many people would pay taxes volunterily?  Would you?  And how much?
And guess what?  Mayors DO handle taxes for cities and they do stop pickup of garbage for non-payers.  So that already happens. 
But hey, go toss it in the dump.  Or a taxpayer's bin you leech!  I'm sure the people who work at the dump are happy volunteers that don't need to be paid. 

As for sales tax loopholes: boy are you an idiot. 
Alot of people have done it.  Hell, I've done it.  I've used a loophole to pay 0 sales tax.  Wanna know how?  I lived in New York, which has sales tax.  I drove to New Jersey, which doesn't have sales tax.  Bought stuff there, tax free, then ... And here's the loophole... Brought it back to New York!  Same thing happens with international shopping.  I've done it between Norway and Sweden.  People do it between USA and Mexico.

Also, plenty of people try to create a tax exempt company, which exempts them from sales tax.  Mostly political action companies (501c i think) or religious exemptions.  So yeah, people do cheat on sales tax.

A person who has a very limited idea of what's possible lecturing me on what's real. I am well aware of what's currently the case. But you seem to think that what you see now is the only option. The one who needs to get their brain checked out is you. I not only know what is true now, (though sometimes I'm not up to speed on the most current laws) but also what can be true.

The roads that are turnpikes to some extent pay for the roads that aren't. New Jersey has a lot of toll roads from what I remember. It also has many that aren't.
Also...
https://fee.org/articles/privatize-public-highways/
What actually happens when you have government-run roads is taxes pay for a shitty job. This is because taxpayers pay them more if they screw up and have to fix it. I know this because the road outside our house is such a road. Our county government repairs roads that didn't need repairing (ripping up the road in the mean time) while our road went for years without repair. Then they made it too steep a grade, so our car bounced coming out of the driveway. We and our next door neighbor called for them to add to our driveway because it didn't blend well with the road. They gave a half-assed tar and gravel road. Our neighbor wasn't satisfied, and hired someone private to do a decent job.
On the other hand, turnpike roads that are awful are avoided. Yet many people use them precisely because they are the best route.
By the way, toll roads aren't the only way to privatize roads. I can also donate money to what is called a memorial road. Basically, I get my name on something in return for shelling out money. Why would I do this? Well because I want my name to be noticed. The rich sometimes do this sort of thing. Jesse Ball Dupont Highway for instance.

There's an easy way to avoid sales tax. You don't buy stuff. But I don't care about your stupid hack. The point is that most people don't actually find this so onerous that they go out of their way to avoid it. And if you exempt the things that poor people spend it on (which you can find out through simply surveys), this becomes a tax that the middle class and rich not only spend it on, but are proud to spend it on. Let me explain. The rich are demonized by people like you by how much they earn. As a result of punitive income taxes (basically your need to "stick it to the man"), they go through complicated economic gymnastics to count things as expenses so they can get a break, to hide wealth, and even create fake businesses as a tax shelter. But if you ever took marketing classes, you'd find out that the upper classes don't find sales taxes onerous. They belong to two groups: old wealthy and nuevo riche. The old wealthy save their money for their kids. I respect their right to do that, even though I know that their kids will probably blow the money. The nuevo riche on the other hand, the marketing class told us about prestige pricing. That is, it's an ego boost that they can afford expensive things. They run through money like water, but because they earn alot, they don't think about saving. So yes, in a very real way, a sales tax system not only will be paid by the rich, but will actually spend more money than they need to. The rich also contribute to charities. If you set up the government like a pay-in charity, no real incentive is needed. You are the one who is out of touch with reality. Patriotic wealthy are glad to pay if you ask money for things that interest them. They are not so glad to be stolen from or told to economically support programs they don't care about. It's simple. You add a sales tax of minimum 10% on non-excluded items, up to 30%, with the option of earmarking where that tax is spent. I'm much richer in this scenario than I actually am, and I decide to buy a Porsche for $223,650. Tax at 10% comes to $22,365 but I decide I want to spend 30%. (If you haven't noticed, this is already done with tips and no most people don't in fact leave no tip) The sales tax screen gives me options on whether I want housing, medicine, education, etc. and I pick to spend 30% of my sales tax on roads. Why? Because I want to have a nice  road that I'm gonna cruise that Porsche down. Yes, realistically wealthy people would do things like this. This is why Donald Trump has gold toilets.

The "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar" approach. Funding things ppl don't want like unpopular wars, you have to steal from them. Offering a video game for $59.99_{Plus Tax} is something they already agreed to pay, and they might even pay more if you set it up as something they want. You know people who pay into GoFundMe programs. This is no different. Incentivize taxes as a purchase of services, and you have willing donors. As long as you do a good job.

But you are too limited. You can only think of theft.

*sigh*
Clearly you've never been to a Jersey shopping mall near the border.

Look, I can't tell if you're too old to remember the 80s or too young to have lived it but we tried the whole "privatize everything".  Didn't work out well.  Turns out, businesses want profit and they aren't gonna be nice about it.  Especially if they own an essential service, like roads, police, hospitals, schools, etc...

Also, you don't seem to know about luxury taxes and it shows.  Its an extra tax on that $233,000 porche.  Like a rich person's sales tax. 
They don't like it.  And you, who are trying to get out of paying any taxes think people are proud to pay 30% sales tax?!  Delusional.

I'm not against new ideas, I'm against bad ones. 

Yes, businesses want profit.

You're the asshole who doesn't want to give it to them.
Or did you forget that even Mao eventually conceded "greed is good," and allowed a capitalist-like economic system even though the government is ostensibly communist. We went to China in 2005. We noticed the US was more economically socialist than China, which had little to no regulations against street corner businesses. US? To sell something, you often need to get a permit.

 But yes, you say it "didn't work." So I guess you're right.

 Or maybe I remember things fondly growing up in the 80s and 90s, and my fond memories are correct. And maybe, just maybe, when businesses want profit, you ought to give it to them.

We've driven through New Jersey several times. We've seen some very sketchy businesses. There are also nice country roads where you can buy bread in Cape May. Or small food stands that sell corn or other produce. You don't seem to understand New Jersey.

We went to a restaurant recently for Mother's Day. My dad (upper-middle class, not super wealthy but able to do nice things) went about a $30/person restaurant. With taxes and tip, he raised the total to about $50/person, he said. That's a little more than 30% combined tax and tip, no?
As for me, I usually avoid restaurants, as I know that I can't pay a fair tip.

You don't understand choice, because you think people have to be forced to do things. If you offer people something they already want, yes they will pay for it. The reason rich people might not like spending a 30% sales tax is that you foisted it on them. Compare these two sales taxes, and see if you get it.

Version 1: Luxury car tax at 30%. No say in how it is spent. Rich hate this tax (but let's face it, they hate all taxes) and might instead buy non-luxury cars.
Version 2: Many more cars are considered luxury. The ones that aren't are like used Pintos or 10+ year old cars. Those cars are tax free. Buying any decent new car has a 10% tax. But can pay a custom tax of 11% or more. Someone is super in favor of funding Ukraine's war. They buy the same car, but this time volunteer to pay 30%, provided they can write in 'Ukraine'.

You'd think that this is impossible. You'd be wrong. We can see you're wrong by looking at tip behavior. You can tip as little as nothing, yet the standard tip is usually 15%. Some pay alot more. After restaurants moved to a gratuity plus tip, some people just leave it at the gratuity and don't pay more. Interesting, isn't it? When people are told what is a social expectation, they tend to pay it and pay more in some cases. When people are made to pay a certain amount, they don't volunteer any more. Almost like people want to pay for things they want to pay for, and don't like being ordered to do so.
You can see it's wrong again when you find out about charity contributions.

Taxes are supposed to be a tip for government doing a good job. If people are trying to pay nothing, this ought to tell volumes about how little they like the service. Or how poor they are. And if you think people have to be forced to pay taxes, deep down, you also know that the services the government provides are horse shit.

Churches do this model (offering is any value, not mandatory). They usually manage to stay in business, provide there are enough members. When there is a specific crisis (e.g. flood in New Orleans), they are told to write on the Pay to the Order of part of the check the church name, and the For part New Orleans Relief. If a church can do this, despite not having government resources and technology, why can't we make touchscreens that tell the government what we want our taxes spent on? You're making excuses.

Yes, businesses want profit.

You're the asshole who doesn't want to give it to them.
Or did you forget that even Mao eventually conceded "greed is good," and allowed a capitalist-like economic system even though the government is ostensibly communist. We went to China in 2005. We noticed the US was more economically socialist than China, which had little to no regulations against street corner businesses. US? To sell something, you often need to get a permit.

 But yes, you say it "didn't work." So I guess you're right.

 Or maybe I remember things fondly growing up in the 80s and 90s, and my fond memories are correct. And maybe, just maybe, when businesses want profit, you ought to give it to them.

We've driven through New Jersey several times. We've seen some very sketchy businesses. There are also nice country roads where you can buy bread in Cape May. Or small food stands that sell corn or other produce. You don't seem to understand New Jersey.

We went to a restaurant recently for Mother's Day. My dad (upper-middle class, not super wealthy but able to do nice things) went about a $30/person restaurant. With taxes and tip, he raised the total to about $50/person, he said. That's a little more than 30% combined tax and tip, no?
As for me, I usually avoid restaurants, as I know that I can't pay a fair tip.

You don't understand choice, because you think people have to be forced to do things. If you offer people something they already want, yes they will pay for it. The reason rich people might not like spending a 30% sales tax is that you foisted it on them. Compare these two sales taxes, and see if you get it.

Version 1: Luxury car tax at 30%. No say in how it is spent. Rich hate this tax (but let's face it, they hate all taxes) and might instead buy non-luxury cars.
Version 2: Many more cars are considered luxury. The ones that aren't are like used Pintos or 10+ year old cars. Those cars are tax free. Buying any decent new car has a 10% tax. But can pay a custom tax of 11% or more. Someone is super in favor of funding Ukraine's war. They buy the same car, but this time volunteer to pay 30%, provided they can write in 'Ukraine'.

You'd think that this is impossible. You'd be wrong. We can see you're wrong by looking at tip behavior. You can tip as little as nothing, yet the standard tip is usually 15%. Some pay alot more. After restaurants moved to a gratuity plus tip, some people just leave it at the gratuity and don't pay more. Interesting, isn't it? When people are told what is a social expectation, they tend to pay it and pay more in some cases. When people are made to pay a certain amount, they don't volunteer any more. Almost like people want to pay for things they want to pay for, and don't like being ordered to do so.
You can see it's wrong again when you find out about charity contributions.

Taxes are supposed to be a tip for government doing a good job. If people are trying to pay nothing, this ought to tell volumes about how little they like the service. Or how poor they are. And if you think people have to be forced to pay taxes, deep down, you also know that the services the government provides are horse shit.

Churches do this model (offering is any value, not mandatory). They usually manage to stay in business, provide there are enough members. When there is a specific crisis (e.g. flood in New Orleans), they are told to write on the Pay to the Order of part of the check the church name, and the For part New Orleans Relief. If a church can do this, despite not having government resources and technology, why can't we make touchscreens that tell the government what we want our taxes spent on? You're making excuses.

Yes, businesses want profit.

You're the asshole who doesn't want to give it to them.

giving business to a monopoly?
no.
no i don't want to give business to a monopoly that price gouges.
just like you don't want to give taxes to a single govt entity that price gouges you.

fucking moron.

my dad (upper-middle class, not super wealthy but able to do nice things)

As for me, I usually avoid restaurants, as I know that I can't pay a fair tip.

your dad the pastor.
collecting voluntary tithe.

tip is also "voluntary".

yet was created as a way by restaurant industry, who lobbied to govt to make it legal, so they wouldn't have to pay their staff.

moron.

Taxes are supposed to be a tip for government doing a good job. If people are trying to pay nothing, this ought to tell volumes about how little they like the service.

no
taxes aren't a tip to employ some monkey to walk around on tv news interviews to whine about XYZ.
fucking moron.
taxes are a fee to pay the monkey to do an actual job.
like the road people to build roads, police to police, fire to put out fires.

fucking stupid.

why can't we make touchscreens that tell the government what we want our taxes spent on? You're making excuses.

because you live in a repbulic
where representatives campaigne on policy they want, are voted in to enact the policy.
and the collective members vote on a budget which allocated money to different causes.
churches usually have a managing board, sometimes volunteer, sometimes elected, that run the same thing.

and the logisitcally cna't put every charity up for vote, you fucking moron.
gov't usually have a grant program to distribute funds where people have to apply and request.

you're a fucking moron.








in summary
bulmba has super awesomely stupid fucking ideas and votes and his dad is a pastor and i'm pretty sure if he learned all his worldly knowledge in-house, then the whole church is also stupid.

this is why understanding Cipolla's "beware the stupid" is so important -








THE FOURGROUPS All human beings are included in four fundamental categories

The intelligent: The intelligent person knows that he’s intelligent.
The bandit : The bandit is aware to be evil.
The naïve or helpless: The naive is painfully imbued with the sense of his own candor.
The stupid : The stupid doesn’t know to be stupid. This contributes to give greater strength, incidence and effectiveness to his devastating action. The stupid is not inhibited by self-consciousness



Law 1: Everyone always and inevitably underestimates the number of stupid people in circulation.
Law 2: The probability that a person is stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
Law 3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or group of people when he or she does not benefit and may even suffer losses.
Law 4: Non-stupid people always underestimate the destructive power of stupid individuals.
Law 5: A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.












https://bonpote.com/en/the-5-basic-laws-of-human-stupidity/

The 5 basic laws of human stupidity
Society
Publication :
16/11/2019
Mis à jour :
21/06/2022
Picture of Thomas Wagner
Thomas Wagner

In 1976, Professor Cipolla published a 60-page essay describing the fundamental laws of a force he perceived as the greatest existential threat to humanity: stupidity.

He divides humanity into four main categories: Intelligent, Bandit, Helpless, Stupid. All are defined on the basis of a win/lose concept, slightly echoing the prisoner’s dilemma. The question is: what category are you in?

Law 1: Everyone always and inevitably underestimates the number of stupid people in circulation
No matter how many idiots you suspect you are surrounded by, you are invariably underestimating the total. This problem is compounded by the biased assumption that some people are intelligent because of superficial factors such as their job, education, or other characteristics that we believe rule out stupidity.

For example, Nabilla is excluded because she is a multimillionaire. And yet… This brings us to the 2nd law:

Law 2: The probability that a person is stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
Cipolla postulates that stupidity is a variable that remains constant in all populations. Every category you can imagine – gender, ethnicity, nationality, education, income – has a fixed percentage of stupid people. University professors can be stupid. There are US presidents who have been and/or are stupid.


A stupid guy, accompanied by a bandit.

Finally, there are stupid people in every nation on Earth. How many idiots are there among us? Impossible to answer (500 according to the police, 3 million according to the trade unionists, 65 million according to Manu). Moreover, any assumption would certainly violate the first law.

Law 3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or group of people when he or she does not benefit and may even suffer losses.
Cipolla calls it the golden law of stupidity. A stupid person, according to the economist, is a person who causes problems for others without any clear benefit for himself. Uncle couldn’t help but post fake articles on Facebook? It is stupid. The receptionist at your hotel who keeps you on the phone for an hour, hangs up on you twice and still manages to screw up your reservation? Stupid².

This law also introduces three other phenotypes that, according to Cipolla, coexist with stupidity. First, there is the intelligent person, whose actions benefit both himself and others. Then comes the bandit, who gets rich at the expense of others. And finally, the abused, the defenseless person, whose actions enrich others at his own expense. Cipolla imagined the four types along a graph, like this:




https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_auto,q_glossy,ret_img,w_585/https://bonpote.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/image-10.png




Bonneteau’s lover top left, Jean Jouzel top right, Balkany bottom right, and Bush Junior bottom left.
Explanation :

if Tom takes an action and suffers a loss while producing a gain for Roman, Tom’s mark will fall in the Helpless field: Tom has been abused.
If Tom makes an action by which he makes a gain while also giving a gain to Roman, Tom’s mark will fall in the I zone: Tom has acted intelligently.
Finally, if Tom takes an action by which he makes a gain causing a loss to Roman, Tom’s mark will fall in zone B: Tom has acted like a bandit. Stupidity is related to the S-zone and all positions on the Y-axis below the O-point.
Distribution frequency
Non-stupid people are an imperfect and inconsistent group. Sometimes we act intelligently, sometimes we are abused, or selfish villains… And sometimes we are a bit of both. The stupid, in comparison, are models of consistency, acting at all times with unwavering idiocy.

However, constant stupidity is the only thing constant about stupidity. That’s what makes stupid people so dangerous. Explains Cipolla.

Essentially stupid people are dangerous and harmful because reasonable people find it difficult to imagine and understand unreasonable behavior. An intelligent person can understand the logic of a bandit. The actions of the bandit follow a pattern of rationality: a wicked rationality indeed, but always rational. The bandit wants an advantage for his account.

Since he is not smart enough to find ways to get the plus as well as provide you with a plus, he will produce his plus by making a minus appear on your account. It’s all bad, but it’s rational and if you’re rational, you can predict it. You can predict the actions of a bandit, his evil maneuvers and therefore you can build your defenses.

With a stupid person, all this is absolutely impossible, as the third fundamental law explains. The stupid person will harass you without any reason, without any advantage, without any plan, at the most improbable times and places. You have no rational way of telling if, when, where, how and why he or she will attack you. Facing a stupid individual, you are completely at his mercy.

This analysis leads to law number 4:

Law 4: Non-stupid people always underestimate the destructive power of stupid individuals.
In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times, in all places, and under all circumstances, dealing and/or associating with stupid people is always a costly mistake. We underestimate idiots, and we do so at our peril. This brings us to the fifth and final law:

Law 5: A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
And its direct consequence: a stupid person is more dangerous than a bandit.

We can’t do anything for idiots. The difference between societies that collapse under the weight of their stupid citizens and those that transcend them is the composition of the non-stupid. Those who progress despite their stupidity have a high proportion of people who act intelligently, those who counterbalance the losses of the stupid by bringing gains for themselves and their fellows.
Declining societies have the same percentage of stupid people as prosperous societies. But they also have a high percentage of defenseless people and, ‘an alarming proliferation of bandits with accents of stupidity‘. Hello Laurent Alexandre…

There is no defense against stupidity. The only way for a society to avoid being crushed by the burden of its idiots is for the non-stupid to work even harder to compensate for the losses of the stupid. When you draw the parallel with the environment, and some people trying to make up for other people’s bullshit, Cipolla was not far from the truth.


Ségolène Royal, who accuses the jet lag of sexism. And she almost became president…
The last word
This book had as much effect on me as reading Schopenhauer’s The Art of Being Always Right. It is very short, but terribly effective. While preparing this article, I realized that it was very easy to find the first 3 categories. Scammed ? I see them every day. A smart person, who wins and makes society wins? Easy: Jean Jouzel. Nobel Prize winner, has made his passion his life, and does everything to make the world more ecological. I also think of any writer who allows us to escape from our daily lives. Sylvain Tesson spoke about his book ‘In the forests of Siberia’ as a remedy… Well, while I buy your book and allow you to live on, you are my remedy when I take the subway in the morning for my bullshit job.

Bandits? Think of the Balkanys. On the other hand, a stupid person is extremely rare. Except for my former colleague who assured me that Hiroshima took place during the Vietnam War, I thought of no one. But this goes back to the first law of stupidity: everyone always and inevitably underestimates the number of stupid people in circulation.

Yes, businesses want profit.

You're the asshole who doesn't want to give it to them.
Or did you forget that even Mao eventually conceded "greed is good," and allowed a capitalist-like economic system even though the government is ostensibly communist. We went to China in 2005. We noticed the US was more economically socialist than China, which had little to no regulations against street corner businesses. US? To sell something, you often need to get a permit.

https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/329291
Yeah... they banned them.  Because they were so unregulated they were disgusting.  Now they're back (as of 2023) and regulated.
I'm guessing you're just making shit up because given how POOR you are what with having failed your family diner, I'm pretty sure you couldn't fly from Virgina to China, let alone vacation there.

But yes, you say it "didn't work." So I guess you're right.

Please see the definition of "Monopoly".
Or how about For Profit Prisons.  That's a good one and its recent.

Or maybe I remember things fondly growing up in the 80s and 90s, and my fond memories are correct. And maybe, just maybe, when businesses want profit, you ought to give it to them.

Ok.  So lets let Walmart own your street.  The street in front of your house.  To leave your driveway, you need a monthly subscription, which they will set at $500.
Since you NEED your car to get to work, you have no choice in paying, don't you?  And since Walmart owns the street and you have no choice in where shop for your driving needs, you MUST pay them.  Unless you wanna walk on the sidewalk that they also own.  That's only $100/month.
See: Internet providers for real world examples.

We've driven through New Jersey several times. We've seen some very sketchy businesses. There are also nice country roads where you can buy bread in Cape May. Or small food stands that sell corn or other produce. You don't seem to understand New Jersey.

At no point did I mention the quality of businesses in New Jersey.  I was referring to the NJ transit Authority, which handles roads like the Turnpike, and how the tolls are ... not enough to cover the total cost of the turnpike.  Its even worse in places where it snows alot.  But sure, keep thinking you're right when history has proven you wrong.

We went to a restaurant recently for Mother's Day. My dad (upper-middle class, not super wealthy but able to do nice things) went about a $30/person restaurant. With taxes and tip, he raised the total to about $50/person, he said. That's a little more than 30% combined tax and tip, no?
As for me, I usually avoid restaurants, as I know that I can't pay a fair tip.

And?  Isn't your dad a pastor at a big church, making close to or over $100,000/year?

You don't understand choice, because you think people have to be forced to do things. If you offer people something they already want, yes they will pay for it. The reason rich people might not like spending a 30% sales tax is that you foisted it on them. Compare these two sales taxes, and see if you get it.

Version 1: Luxury car tax at 30%. No say in how it is spent. Rich hate this tax (but let's face it, they hate all taxes) and might instead buy non-luxury cars.
Version 2: Many more cars are considered luxury. The ones that aren't are like used Pintos or 10+ year old cars. Those cars are tax free. Buying any decent new car has a 10% tax. But can pay a custom tax of 11% or more. Someone is super in favor of funding Ukraine's war. They buy the same car, but this time volunteer to pay 30%, provided they can write in 'Ukraine'.

Version 1: They literally buy luxury cars depsite the luxury tax.  The only reaon to buy it is status symbol and thus: they do.  So already you're wrong.
Version 2: If a rich person is in favor of funding Ukraine's war, they'll tell their representative to do that. 

You'd think that this is impossible. You'd be wrong. We can see you're wrong by looking at tip behavior. You can tip as little as nothing, yet the standard tip is usually 15%. Some pay alot more. After restaurants moved to a gratuity plus tip, some people just leave it at the gratuity and don't pay more. Interesting, isn't it? When people are told what is a social expectation, they tend to pay it and pay more in some cases. When people are made to pay a certain amount, they don't volunteer any more. Almost like people want to pay for things they want to pay for, and don't like being ordered to do so.
You can see it's wrong again when you find out about charity contributions.

Taxes are supposed to be a tip for government doing a good job. If people are trying to pay nothing, this ought to tell volumes about how little they like the service. Or how poor they are. And if you think people have to be forced to pay taxes, deep down, you also know that the services the government provides are horse shit.

Churches do this model (offering is any value, not mandatory). They usually manage to stay in business, provide there are enough members. When there is a specific crisis (e.g. flood in New Orleans), they are told to write on the Pay to the Order of part of the check the church name, and the For part New Orleans Relief. If a church can do this, despite not having government resources and technology, why can't we make touchscreens that tell the government what we want our taxes spent on? You're making excuses.

Yeah... you don't seem to understand people.  Tipping and Churches are social pressure.  At least in America.  When in Church, its expected that you give them money because you've always done it.  Your parents did it.  Your grand parents did it.  Etc... Its pretty much how Churches work and that's why a plate goes around: You can see what others have put in and you feel obligated to put some in yourself.  Its  a way of guilting (even if they don't FEEL guilty) money. 

As for your story: Well ... yes and no.  It depends on the state.  The average is 15-20% of expected Tipping.  Gratuity payments are not tips and thus aren't counted as such for the purpose of your bill.  But they range from 15 - 20%.  More for larger parties.  Which the customer than see's as a tip for the waitstaff (it isn't) and thus doesn't pay thinking they'd just pay double.  Now tips and Automatic Gratiuty (or service charages) are treated differently.  Automatic Gratiutity, if given to the employee, is counted as non-tipped wages.  By doing this, the employee gets a more consistent paycheck and the restaurant has a more consistent income vs tips which vary wildly and since tips are often used to offset low wages to meet the minimum wage, it ends up being that the harder an employee works and the more tips they get, the less money the restaurant needs to pay them in a week.  Depends on the restaurant of course.  But you know ALL This, right?  Because you ran a restaurant?


Key point too:

The IRS has the PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUND which is funded by $3 payments from taxes.  This is totally voluntary.

So of the 271.5 million tax return in 2023 (https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-irs-data-book) they received $4,703,067.00 (https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/PECF_monthly_report_2023.pdf)
Divide that by $3 and you get 1,567,689 people.  That's how many people clicked that little box.
That's 0.5%.
So, a voluntary tax/funding generated a whooping 0.5% of people who wanted to pay it.  Now, obviously we can't put that to everything but it shows that, when given a choice to spend more money or not, most people won't.

So either put up your own data or go outside and actually talk to people.

Version 2: If a rich person is in favor of funding Ukraine's war, they'll tell their representative to do that.

What for? Money tends to talk louder than letters to representatives.

Once again, from experience. (Sent about three emails to my representatives, usually only got a stock response back)

This includes local government. Phoned the town over a cord that they left dangling around near a telephone wire. Let's see... nearly three years later, they finally resolved it.

If someone is in favor of something, the best way of making a change is really and truly to send tax money directly toward them.

In fact, this is what rich people already do. They go lobby by offering "gifts". This is why this is the best government money can buy. This just saves them some of the legwork by giving the lobbyists more time to shop, and less at the White House steps.

So you admit the rich are buyingpokiticians.

So dismantling govt will do nothing to solve the actual problem ->unelected rich people dictating to us how to live.

When Bulma wants LESS govt and MORE private big corp ownership of roads and essential services in a forprofit model that only serves to create unneccessary middlemanfee roadblocks and waste everyones time...


https://youtube.com/shorts/WBTcBiHZ0Ec?si=xp6MT0DYK1I0bM_S

So you admit the rich are buyingpokiticians.

So dismantling govt will do nothing to solve the actual problem ->unelected rich people dictating to us how to live.

I know.

You're shocked, shocked, that this is going on.

"Here are your winnings."

Actually, it will change things:
1. Nobody to bail them out. Government does most of that. Now their failure is their fault.
2. Everyone knows they throw money around. Before it was assumed that government would penalize them with heavy taxes. But I've told you repeatedly that this is a lie.
3. Nobody to penalize you with heavy taxes.
4. If somehow they do get people to bail them out, it's now completely transparent, rather than covered by a myth of honest government. Government is corrupt, end of story. Once you learn this, if you decide to storm someone's house for being rich, you can either take what they have and you don't, or they can shoot you. Things are much more clear.

Shoxking because you denied it was an issue earlier.

No
Im not shocked its going on.
Thats what jackB and i have been telling yous been happening.
You have such a poor grasp of reality you think youre twaching me something.

So why bam govt when the rich are the source of the problem?
So stupid.
In other countries the rich buy themselves personal armies/ militias.
Dismantling govt does nothing to solve the influence.

Storming a rich guys house now, when hes got security and gatss and dogs and alarms is no different than if govt exists or not.

Much more clear with every one of your posts..
You are fucking moron.
So fuckin stupid.

Quote

Version 2: If a rich person is in favor of funding Ukraine's war, they'll tell their representative to do that.

What for? Money tends to talk louder than letters to representatives.

Once again, from experience. (Sent about three emails to my representatives, usually only got a stock response back)

This includes local government. Phoned the town over a cord that they left dangling around near a telephone wire. Let's see... nearly three years later, they finally resolved it.

If someone is in favor of something, the best way of making a change is really and truly to send tax money directly toward them.

In fact, this is what rich people already do. They go lobby by offering "gifts". This is why this is the best government money can buy. This just saves them some of the legwork by giving the lobbyists more time to shop, and less at the White House steps.

As I told you, the government doesn't own the pole, a PRIVATE BUSINESS does.  So you HAVE what you want: privitization.  How'd that go with 3 years of a downed line?