4 ms·

No. No. No. It is really hard to take someones money and claim you can do better with it than they can, especially if that: #1 you do not share their views #

No. No. No. It is really hard to take someones money and claim you can do better with it than they can, especially if that: #1 you do not share their views #2 you have no obligation to spend the money on what you stole it for #3 you have a proven track record for inefficiency Want to help me out? let me keep my damn money, let me decide what is right for me. you got an agenda? spend your own money toward it. its also worth noting that almost all school funding does not come from these taxes. if you are so concerned about funding public services, demand Apple pay their taxes. they got 250 billion of the tax evaded stuff.

taeric 9y ago
Using rhetoric like "stole it for" doesn't help your cause. Pretty much period. I'm interested in debating some of these points. (Honestly more interested in seeing others debate it.) However, if you are going to get emotional on points, realize that you are betraying that you likely haven't researched the points. As an example, the claim that "almost all school funding" does not come from these taxes is not as true as "almost none of these taxes go to school funding." More, this belies the idea that you would be willing to have these taxes exist, if they went to schools. I am guessing this was not your intent. Though, I am also guessing you use this rhetoric to your advantage.
- autokad 9y ago
  you are the one pushing rhetoric, and taking my money is not a point for debate. I experienced this first hand with Philadelphia's soda tax (to fund universal preschool), which has been a spectacular yet tragic failure thus far. at least with the tax, it was 'said' to have been appropriated for it, but capitals gains simply do not go for schooling children. those are funded mostly local, please play your 'ALL'/'NONE' lawyer ball somewhere else.
  - taeric 9y ago
    Are you actually interested in debating? If so, I am still interested in seeing that happen. Pulling nominally related stories up, and then referring to them as a "spectacular yet tragic failure" without citations does little to make me believe you. What makes it a spectacular failure? What makes it a tragic failure? Quickly scanning headlines, it looks like it isn't raising as much as some predictions, but 40 million is not nothing. Nor is a marked reduction in sugary soda consumption. I'd be curious to know if any health benefits can be seen in the city. And again with the rhetoric. Telling me to take my "lawyer ball" elsewhere is showing that you don't intend on having conversation. So, are you?
aylmao 9y ago
Claiming it's better to abolish public spending due to inefficiencies is like claiming we should disband all police force due to the terrible incidents that occur against civilians. Should we have everyone fend for themselves because they know what's better? No. People like to screw each other up and prefer to avoid problems that don't concern them. We should fix the inefficiencies. Individuals have little over-arching notion or interest in what's best for a nation beyond their community or past their lifetimes.

taeric 9y ago

Using rhetoric like "stole it for" doesn't help your cause. Pretty much period. I'm interested in debating some of these points. (Honestly more interested in seeing others debate it.) However, if you are going to get emotional on points, realize that you are betraying that you likely haven't researched the points. As an example, the claim that "almost all school funding" does not come from these taxes is not as true as "almost none of these taxes go to school funding." More, this belies the idea that you would be willing to have these taxes exist, if they went to schools. I am guessing this was not your intent. Though, I am also guessing you use this rhetoric to your advantage.

autokad 9y ago
you are the one pushing rhetoric, and taking my money is not a point for debate. I experienced this first hand with Philadelphia's soda tax (to fund universal preschool), which has been a spectacular yet tragic failure thus far. at least with the tax, it was 'said' to have been appropriated for it, but capitals gains simply do not go for schooling children. those are funded mostly local, please play your 'ALL'/'NONE' lawyer ball somewhere else.
- taeric 9y ago
  Are you actually interested in debating? If so, I am still interested in seeing that happen. Pulling nominally related stories up, and then referring to them as a "spectacular yet tragic failure" without citations does little to make me believe you. What makes it a spectacular failure? What makes it a tragic failure? Quickly scanning headlines, it looks like it isn't raising as much as some predictions, but 40 million is not nothing. Nor is a marked reduction in sugary soda consumption. I'd be curious to know if any health benefits can be seen in the city. And again with the rhetoric. Telling me to take my "lawyer ball" elsewhere is showing that you don't intend on having conversation. So, are you?

aylmao 9y ago

Claiming it's better to abolish public spending due to inefficiencies is like claiming we should disband all police force due to the terrible incidents that occur against civilians. Should we have everyone fend for themselves because they know what's better? No. People like to screw each other up and prefer to avoid problems that don't concern them. We should fix the inefficiencies. Individuals have little over-arching notion or interest in what's best for a nation beyond their community or past their lifetimes.