This is why paying tax's is necessary

The necessity of that wall depends on your view of noise pollution. If you view it as bunk, then fine, it's a waste of money. Otherwise, what's the difference between your highway and the Love Canal debacle? If the government makes a mess of the environment on property it owns, and it's affecting the quality of life of people who own land beside it, it's the government's responsibility to clean up the mess. You might say that those idiots knew what they were getting into when they bought there. But the acceptance of noise as a form of pollution is fairly new, as is the acceptance that asbestos is carcinogenic.

As much as I favour small government and lower taxes, there are services and infrastructure that need to be provided for the common good, and that necessatates taxes. In this regard, I think your example is particularly inapt.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's exactly what I'd say. Why in the hell should tax dollars go to decrease noise pollution on property that was probably bought at a discount due to the noise pollution. Investigation would probably show some politician bought up a lot of the property being improved at taxpayer expense and will soon sell it making a tidy profit. Again, we're talking $14 million. Spent by a government going deeper in debt every day,

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you really want to have some "fun", check out the land sales all around major cities that are slowly/rapidly expanding. In many/most instances, one prime piece of land will be flipped several times during the process ...and most are city "leaders" or politicians or friends of those two! It's a riot of big names in city, county government and their friends.

But lest y'all forget, it's perfectly legal ...it's call land speculation and any of us can do it if we have the money to do so. Some of you don't like people with money, but that's something different and personal. Most of you think that peope with money should give all that money to the poor or to the underprivileged or somesuch, but that's ...hmmm, what is that?

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

While I normally just read the posts and do not respond, and I am not really in position to start an ongoing conversation. But Dude, you are so misguided.

 

I completely agree. His comment was so off base I felt it didn't even merit a reply.

 

No, it's quite on base: perfectly relevant to the subject at hand, taxation.

 

If the government owns everything, there is no taxation, because no one has anything worth taxing. Of course when the government nationalizes all industry, one might consider that 100% taxation. Yeah, that's a great plan. We can all stand in line waiting to receive our pittance from our lord and master. That worked real well in the USSR.

 

Mad:

You do bring up a good point in a socialist/communistic form of government, which owns everything, there can be nothing to tax.

But if government own everything that would include thought, or another way of looking it would be they determine what you need or don't need. That is a form of mind control, but that is not really my greater point.

The greater point is that if government owns everything. How does it go about achieving anything without workers? What does any worker want in return for their services? If the answers are nothing and financial rewards, then isn't socialism/communism another form of slavery?

Wow have we come full circle or what?

First, we found a country based on the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Admittedly, we do this understanding the great injustice of slavery. We even have a civil war in large part to end that injustice.

Now, as a matter of societal evolution we have some who believe we should return to slavery for the sakes of progress.

I thought the left was progressive not retrogressive?