5 ms·

Aside from military protection, that is a list of things largely irrelevant to people who live in rural areas. It's money to be confiscated from them and used t

by yock 9y ago

Aside from military protection, that is a list of things largely irrelevant to people who live in rural areas. It's money to be confiscated from them and used to prop up societies to which they have little to no connection.

CydeWeys 9y ago
Those societies are their customers. It's where they're making all their money. Only off-the-grid homesteaders can make any credible claim to having no connection to society at large, but if they get sick, they better be honest with themselves and just die at home instead of going to get healthcare from a system they elected not to contribute to.
- yock 9y ago
  Why should they be taxed for the benefit of their customers? Aren't their customers paying them?
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    Modern society works by having everyone contribute for the greater good. One of the principal mechanisms by which this occurs is taxation and spending on government services. You go really far down the civilizational chain if you remove these mechanisms. Almost all the way down to primitivism.
    - yock 9y ago
      > Modern society works by having everyone contribute for the greater good. Whose definition of "good" are we using? Clearly not mine, as my definition of "good" demands consent.
      - CydeWeys 9y ago
        Stop using the Internet for starters, then. Billions of dollars of tax money went into developing it.
        yock 9y ago
        That's just foolish. I'm not going to forsake the benefit of something I'm forced to pay for. I can, however, still advocate for changes to that system. That isn't hypocrisy.
        CydeWeys 9y ago
        The system is what allowed the existence of the medium you're using to argue against it. It is hypocritical to argue against the downsides of civilization while taking advantages of all of its benefits.
        winston_smith 9y ago
        By that logic you couldn't argue against anything in our current system, since it all played a part in creating the life you live.
        icebraining 9y ago
        So if a thief steals your car and leaves you his bicycle, it's hypocritical to criticize him while using the bike to get around? Or if you're forced to pay protection money by some gang, it's hypocritical to criticize them even if they do protect your business from other gangs? And is it hypocritical to live in the West and take advantage of all the benefits it gained from centuries of imperialism and exploitation, while criticizing that behavior? I'm not against taxation, but that's some BS logic.
        ubernostrum 9y ago
        Your attempt to make an analogy here doesn't hold up. The anti-tax position would be to want to keep your car but also get use of the bicycle whenever you want it, since the true taxation analogy would be both you and the other person granting use of your property to others. Unless you want to argue about people paying more in taxes than they (feel they) get in benefits. In which case, well, the most rabid anti-tax people generally are getting far more benefits than they pay for (and are busily re-rigging the tax system to tilt even more in their favor).
  - pnutjam 9y ago
    A certain base is required for customers to exist. It's most beneficial to pay a tiny amount towards this vs. having no customers.
JBlue42 9y ago
Yeah, that's kind of bullshit. They send their kids to public schools and maybe public universities later, drive on public roads, use water, electricity, etc. They also have a place where they buy seed, animals, neighbors they attend church with, etc. Not to mention the markets they need to sell to. There is some level of self-sustainment but it's a myth how 'independent' people really are. They might be detached from the federal side of things but they still also have to interact at a state level.
- EADGBE 9y ago
  There are levels of rural, BTW. Of which more of these services aren't provided.
evgen 9y ago
Given the fact that most farmers (or at least the ones we are talking about here) are living off the welfare gravy train known as agricultural subsidies it is hard to have any pity for those who think that their taxes are confiscation. They would have been forced off their inefficient enterprise generations ago if it were not for those "societies to which they have little to no connection" propping them up.
- cat199 9y ago
  > inefficient enterprise only when competing against imports from defacto slaves in other countries..
- yock 9y ago
  You'd get no resistance from me to eliminate agriculture subsidies. It would be mighty nice to see an organized movement to produce crops free of subsidies. I think people would be shocked to see just how cheap their food really is.
mywittyname 9y ago
It's the cost of being an American. And in reality, people in rural communities are the ones that are being propped up by money confiscated from others. Roads alone are very expensive, over a million bucks per mile in rural areas. Wyoming has 33,000 miles of road serving a population of 550k. That works out to at least $60k per person in just to build the roads, never mind maintaining them. And not having these roads means higher transportation costs, which translate to more money spent on goods and more profit being lost to transporting sales. There are plenty of countries in the world without individual taxes, they just also happen to be places most people don't want to live.
- maxsilver 9y ago
  > over a million bucks per mile in rural areas This is a commonly repeated myth, but is not usually true. Road costs are far lower than often claimed. A 2-lane asphalt road construction costs about $800k on average and lasts approximately 30 years with proper maintenance. (Using MDOT numbers, since that's what I happen to have on hand). In Wyoming, this works out to $1,600 per person per year ($133/month/person). But that assumes every single road in Wyoming is paved -- they aren't. I don't know the accuracy of this, but the University of Wyoming claims only 20% of a county's roads are paved in the state, on average, so real costs are probably much lower. In states with any significant city whatsoever, the costs drop dramatically. Michigan, for example, has 120,256 miles of road serving 9.9 million people, 75% of which are rural. That's a total road cost of about $360 per person per year ($30/person/month).
  - lloyd-christmas 9y ago
    Interestingly, Wyoming is actually the worst pick of any state that they could choose. As of 2013[0], it was second in the nation (New Jersey) in balance of payments with the federal government (give more than take). It was one of only two red states, along with North Dakota. Per capita, it paid the most of any state in corporate taxes, 3rd most in estate taxes (behind CT and FL), and 2nd in excise taxes (ND). [0] https://osc.state.ny.us/reports/budget/2015/fed_budget_fy2013.pdf https://osc.state.ny.us/reports/budget/2015/fed_budget_fy201... I can't find a more recent pre-compiled source, and too lazy to run the numbers myself. I doubt it has changed significantly enough to make the
StanislavPetrov 9y ago
Especially when you consider that the cost of "military protection" would be is a tiny, tiny fraction of what we spend annually to maintain our global military empire that offers no protection at all (and actually serves to create many new enemies and threats).

by yock 9y ago

CydeWeys 9y ago

Those societies are their customers. It's where they're making all their money. Only off-the-grid homesteaders can make any credible claim to having no connection to society at large, but if they get sick, they better be honest with themselves and just die at home instead of going to get healthcare from a system they elected not to contribute to.

yock 9y ago
Why should they be taxed for the benefit of their customers? Aren't their customers paying them?
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  Modern society works by having everyone contribute for the greater good. One of the principal mechanisms by which this occurs is taxation and spending on government services. You go really far down the civilizational chain if you remove these mechanisms. Almost all the way down to primitivism.
  - yock 9y ago
    > Modern society works by having everyone contribute for the greater good. Whose definition of "good" are we using? Clearly not mine, as my definition of "good" demands consent.
    - CydeWeys 9y ago
      Stop using the Internet for starters, then. Billions of dollars of tax money went into developing it.
      - yock 9y ago
        That's just foolish. I'm not going to forsake the benefit of something I'm forced to pay for. I can, however, still advocate for changes to that system. That isn't hypocrisy.
        CydeWeys 9y ago
        The system is what allowed the existence of the medium you're using to argue against it. It is hypocritical to argue against the downsides of civilization while taking advantages of all of its benefits.
        winston_smith 9y ago
        By that logic you couldn't argue against anything in our current system, since it all played a part in creating the life you live.
        icebraining 9y ago
        So if a thief steals your car and leaves you his bicycle, it's hypocritical to criticize him while using the bike to get around? Or if you're forced to pay protection money by some gang, it's hypocritical to criticize them even if they do protect your business from other gangs? And is it hypocritical to live in the West and take advantage of all the benefits it gained from centuries of imperialism and exploitation, while criticizing that behavior? I'm not against taxation, but that's some BS logic.
        ubernostrum 9y ago
        Your attempt to make an analogy here doesn't hold up. The anti-tax position would be to want to keep your car but also get use of the bicycle whenever you want it, since the true taxation analogy would be both you and the other person granting use of your property to others. Unless you want to argue about people paying more in taxes than they (feel they) get in benefits. In which case, well, the most rabid anti-tax people generally are getting far more benefits than they pay for (and are busily re-rigging the tax system to tilt even more in their favor).
- pnutjam 9y ago
  A certain base is required for customers to exist. It's most beneficial to pay a tiny amount towards this vs. having no customers.

JBlue42 9y ago

Yeah, that's kind of bullshit. They send their kids to public schools and maybe public universities later, drive on public roads, use water, electricity, etc. They also have a place where they buy seed, animals, neighbors they attend church with, etc. Not to mention the markets they need to sell to. There is some level of self-sustainment but it's a myth how 'independent' people really are. They might be detached from the federal side of things but they still also have to interact at a state level.

EADGBE 9y ago
There are levels of rural, BTW. Of which more of these services aren't provided.

evgen 9y ago

Given the fact that most farmers (or at least the ones we are talking about here) are living off the welfare gravy train known as agricultural subsidies it is hard to have any pity for those who think that their taxes are confiscation. They would have been forced off their inefficient enterprise generations ago if it were not for those "societies to which they have little to no connection" propping them up.

cat199 9y ago
> inefficient enterprise only when competing against imports from defacto slaves in other countries..
yock 9y ago
You'd get no resistance from me to eliminate agriculture subsidies. It would be mighty nice to see an organized movement to produce crops free of subsidies. I think people would be shocked to see just how cheap their food really is.

mywittyname 9y ago

It's the cost of being an American. And in reality, people in rural communities are the ones that are being propped up by money confiscated from others. Roads alone are very expensive, over a million bucks per mile in rural areas. Wyoming has 33,000 miles of road serving a population of 550k. That works out to at least $60k per person in just to build the roads, never mind maintaining them. And not having these roads means higher transportation costs, which translate to more money spent on goods and more profit being lost to transporting sales. There are plenty of countries in the world without individual taxes, they just also happen to be places most people don't want to live.

maxsilver 9y ago
> over a million bucks per mile in rural areas This is a commonly repeated myth, but is not usually true. Road costs are far lower than often claimed. A 2-lane asphalt road construction costs about $800k on average and lasts approximately 30 years with proper maintenance. (Using MDOT numbers, since that's what I happen to have on hand). In Wyoming, this works out to $1,600 per person per year ($133/month/person). But that assumes every single road in Wyoming is paved -- they aren't. I don't know the accuracy of this, but the University of Wyoming claims only 20% of a county's roads are paved in the state, on average, so real costs are probably much lower. In states with any significant city whatsoever, the costs drop dramatically. Michigan, for example, has 120,256 miles of road serving 9.9 million people, 75% of which are rural. That's a total road cost of about $360 per person per year ($30/person/month).
- lloyd-christmas 9y ago
  Interestingly, Wyoming is actually the worst pick of any state that they could choose. As of 2013[0], it was second in the nation (New Jersey) in balance of payments with the federal government (give more than take). It was one of only two red states, along with North Dakota. Per capita, it paid the most of any state in corporate taxes, 3rd most in estate taxes (behind CT and FL), and 2nd in excise taxes (ND). [0] https://osc.state.ny.us/reports/budget/2015/fed_budget_fy2013.pdf https://osc.state.ny.us/reports/budget/2015/fed_budget_fy201... I can't find a more recent pre-compiled source, and too lazy to run the numbers myself. I doubt it has changed significantly enough to make the

StanislavPetrov 9y ago

Especially when you consider that the cost of "military protection" would be is a tiny, tiny fraction of what we spend annually to maintain our global military empire that offers no protection at all (and actually serves to create many new enemies and threats).