SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Senate Passes Short-Term Deal To Reopen Government, With Trump's Endorsement
President Trump has endorsed a bipartisan deal that would end the 35-day partial government shutdown. The three-week stopgap funding measure would reopen shuttered agencies while negotiations continue.
Trump announces deal to lift shutdown
President Donald Trump has endorsed a deal to reopen the US government for three weeks, after a record-breaking shutdown of federal agencies.
But the pact does not include any money that Mr Trump has demanded for a US-Mexico border wall.
See also: Dem senator unveils 'Stop STUPIDITY Act' to prevent all shutdowns
White House: 'Large down payment' on wall could end government shutdown
35 ways the shutdown is affecting America
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3 Original Submission #4
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 29 2019, @02:54AM (9 children)
Again, you and your wife want a fancy lifestyle, but you don't want to pay for it. Please drama it up all you want, but I don't have to agree with the premise.
(Score: 1) by darkpixel on Tuesday January 29 2019, @03:43AM (8 children)
I'm not saying you have to agree. You can believe the Earth is flat for all I care. It doesn't make it so.
Property taxes are am insidious form of slavery, they are immoral, and they institute socialism in America.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 29 2019, @05:40AM (7 children)
My view is that the most legitimate and moral sort of tax is a wealth tax. Property taxes are pretty close and hence, never going to be immoral in my book. Once again, you want to live in an expensive house, then you pay the piper. And contrary to your earlier assertion, I don't believe there is a more parsimonious way to pay for the services that property taxes pay for.
(Score: 1) by darkpixel on Tuesday January 29 2019, @05:58AM (6 children)
> Before it was some imaginary noble raping wives on their honeymoon night, now it's imaginary slavery. I wonder what non sequiturs will come next?
You're the one trying to justify acts of violence as being "part of living in a civilized society" or some other such nonsense. If you're willing to accept taxation as being the price we pay for living in a society, you should have no problems with prima nocta.
> My view is that the most legitimate and moral sort of tax is a wealth tax.
I'm betting you wouldn't know morality if it bit you in the ass.
I'm sure you've seen the memes "It's only illegal when you do it". That's taxation.
If I come over and demand a few thousand dollars at the point of a gun while threatening to throw you and your wife out on the street so I can sell your house, it's robbery. But it's legal when the government does it.
If I flash my lights at you, run you off the road, draw a gun on you and claim you were driving faster than some random number I made up, it's impersonating an officer, assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping, false imprisonment, etc... But when the government does it, it's ok.
> Once again, you want to live in an expensive house, then you pay the piper.
Sure. I paid the contractor for the materials and his time and labor to construct it. What other piper needs to be paid?
> And contrary to your earlier assertion, I don't believe there is a more parsimonious way to pay for the services that property taxes pay for.
Perhaps that's your limitation to deal with. I grew up with a fire department that was privately funded by the neighborhood. You had the *freedom* to pay for their service or not. If they mismanaged funds, everyone could easily say "nope--I'm not paying anymore". Try doing that when the government mismanages funds.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 29 2019, @06:21AM (5 children)
Just like you don't?
Ok, so there seems to be this quasilibertarian viewpoint driving your posts. But you are in error on a couple of important points. First, it's not "I come over and demand a few thousand dollars at the point of a gun while threatening to throw you and your wife out on the street so I can sell your house", it's "I, appointed by the local community, come over and demand a few thousand dollars at the point of a gun while threatening to throw you and your wife out on the street so I can sell your house only taking that few thousand dollars while you and your wife keep the rest". There's a huge thing that gets missed here, namely only that small amount of money is seized.
On the second point, if someone doesn't have that power in a cartel or monopoly situation, then everyone has that power. It can work if the society is generally libertarian in outlook, but that's not the real world. You have a bunch of people who for whatever reason will use the power irresponsibly. And you have a bunch of people who will sacrifice freedom for security, even though that's frequently been a bad deal. People are far from perfect and for the libertarian viewpoint, the problem is that there's way too many people who won't respect libertarian ideals. At that point, you need someone to enforce the laws that most people won't enforce, or you won't have law.
(Score: 1) by darkpixel on Wednesday February 06 2019, @02:06PM (4 children)
I absolutely have a problem when the government (or anyone else) thinks they have a right to your body or your property.
"I, appointed by the local community"?!? That's contrary to liberty and the job of government in a representative republic as outlined in our Declaration of Independence.
...except I sold your house well below market value so I could quickly recoup the money I feel I'm owed and I don't care if I screw the people over in my quest to get "my money". But hey--who cares if we sell your $100,000 house out from under you over a pittance, right? I've been to tax sales.
Oh, I forgot we justify right and wrong based on amount. So rape is ok if you only rape just a little?
I disagree. If government disappeared tomorrow, I'm not somehow magically granted extra rights (you can't grant a right), and I'm not somehow magically granted extra privileges. If government didn't exist, murder would still be illegal, wrong, immoral, etc...
I can't agree more.
I won't claim to understand the libertarian viewpoint, but as I understand it, it's not lawlessness. The government's sole job is to protect and defend individual rights. So if someone steals from you or murders you, the government is supposed to intervene.
But I'm hoping you wouldn't chase me down in your car and demand money because I was doing 75 in a 70...we don't need those 'laws' enforced.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 08 2019, @02:11AM (3 children)
Indeed we do all the time. You can't rape a little, but you can tax a little.
I don't get the reason you're still posting. You claimed for some reason that property taxes was a particularly bad way to collect taxes. To the contrary, I think it's a good way to impedance match taxes, which I consider a necessary evil, to services used from the local government. That's just a matter of disagreement.
But this over-the-top complaint that your wife will have to sell the house and move somewhere else? I still don't believe the role of society is to protect wealthy peoples' life styles. Your wife would indeed be wealthy because of that property even if she doesn't have liquid assets. By merely selling the house and then moving somewhere cheaper (and possibly with a much lower property tax rate too!), your wife solves all the problems. And if she's stubborn enough that she'll refuse to pay taxes and force the state to take over the house and sell it for whatever. That's just bad decision making which is its own reward.
(Score: 1) by darkpixel on Friday February 08 2019, @03:46AM (2 children)
A little rape is wrong. A little theft is wrong.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 08 2019, @03:52AM
But a little rape is a huge amount of harm. A little theft is indeed little. Wrongness is not a bit flag you set.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 08 2019, @04:02AM
A great deal, of course.
Like allowing the rich and poor alike to sleep under a bridge? I'm using the tropes of socialism here, because there are real issues you aren't considering. Government is used for a number of services. As a result, it needs money. The rich (and property owners in general) use those services to a greater degree than those without.
So what of the things we spoke of, is this robin hood activity? Law enforcement, emergency services, roads, education?
Depends on the region. Property taxes didn't come out of nowhere [eh.net].
In other words, the use of property taxes by valuation existed before the US Constitution did.
You have yet to present a reason why it's supposed to be immoral. As to your 82 widow getting thrown on the street, she can just buy a home in a cheaper neighborhood and then she avoids that fate.