Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Reasons why Corporations aren't People


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 150 of 215 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Yeah my system is riddled with weaknesses.
Very few of them are at the corporate level, most of them are in the Buisness community that we would call a medium Buisness. 75 to 500 employees.

Exxon, BP, Goldman Sachs, AT&T, AOL Timewarner, Apple and Microsoft would be fine I'd wager. Corporations at this level have profit margins that are hard to ascertain, but are certainly above 10%. The oil companies and investment houses in particular.

Development is something that too many companies avoid. The ones that do do it tend to BS you on costs, BigPharma, or overstate what "development" is, Bank of America and Humana.


My model is highly unlikely because of the EITC.
It's NOT going away without a massive overhaul of not only the taxcode, but of how the economy as a whole operates.


Two things, without diving too deep into this topic yet:

1)If corporations want special treatment let's set up new rules only for corporations that don't apply to businesses. Thing is they want the best of both worlds, free speech and other rights afforded to persons in the constitution as well as the mechanical benefits of being a business. Pick one, for a start, or perhaps we need to set up a third legal entity category.

2)How about a flat tax on income ABOVE the poverty line. In other words, for a family of 4, the first 22,000 made each year is tax free. Then it's taxed at a ~20% rate. I'm aware of the flaws in this as well, but it's a start in the right direction.

And real quick, flat taxes on gross revenue is an utter non-starter. It would cause the shut-down of nearly every business known to man. For the record, Exon-Mobil's profit margin is ~9%.


Auxmaulous wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


So you think that a family of 4 with an income of $22,000, should receive zero benefits and pay into the system?
Where did I say they should receive zero benefits?

You said they should have skin in the game. I take that to mean that they have to pay money into the system. If they are going to get money from the system, isn't it simpler to just let them keep their money? Or are you saying the government should decide how they spend a portion of their income?

Here's a couple things to help make it clear, fill this out:

Income: $22,000
Taxes paid: XXXX
Benefit received: XXXX

The actual numbers don't matter, but replace the X's with an approximation of what you think they should be. We're not going to quibble over $2000 vs $2500, but just put some numbers in to give the general idea of what you think.

Paizo Employee Digital Products Assistant

Removed a few posts and replies. Calling one political party "inhuman" and alluding to adult activities doesn't seem productive. Let's keep this discussion civil :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

[Ahem]

Both parties are inhumanly wedded (hope that's not too adult) to corporate rule and profits at the expense of the rest of the population.

Any other metaphors for services that they provide to the plutocracy that might remind one of amorous favors are the result of your dirty, dirty mind!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
zagnabbit wrote:


Exxon, BP, Goldman Sachs, AT&T, AOL Timewarner, Apple and Microsoft would be fine I'd wager. Corporations at this level have profit margins that are hard to ascertain, but are certainly above 10%. The oil companies and investment houses in particular.

Taxing any business, but particularly a small business on net rather than gross profits would destroy those businesses. Very few businesses make large percentages in profit. Those that did survive would be the ones that marked up the costs of their goods or services to insure those profit margins, passing on those costs to the consumer. Furthermore, it would be the poor that bore the brunt of that increased cost. Who is going to feel an increase in the cost of milk by a couple of bucks more the rich or the poor?

Buy you are right, the big corporations could likely weather it better, so you would simply narrow the possibilities of social advancement. (Short of working for a large corporation that is.)


Sales tax is just that MeanDM -- the business passing its tax directly to you.

Taldor

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Abraham spalding wrote:
Sales tax is just that MeanDM -- the business passing its tax directly to you.

Let's be honest, the cost of all corporate taxes are passed onto the consumer.

In the end, corporate taxes are there to make individual citizens happy that the government is taxing somebody else...when they're not.

When you tax the oil companies, their overhead goes up. They have to charge more for their product. Your fuel costs go up. Your electricity costs go up. The costs of plastic goods goes up. The cost of all goods shipped by truck go up to cover the increased cost of gas for the truckers. Etcetera, and so on and so forth.


Which is why I like the idea of taxing profits -- it's the point where they can't avoid it since it comes after costs. The only way to lessen their taxes is to lessen their profits.


Jess Door wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Sales tax is just that MeanDM -- the business passing its tax directly to you.
Let's be honest, the cost of all corporate taxes are passed onto the consumer.

It's more complex than you make it seem, however.

It has to do with the price elasticity of the product or service the corporation creates, as well as market forces.

Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, if we moved from a corporate tax system to a purely sales tax/value added tax model at this juncture, the prices would go up by how much the taxes are set at. The prices would go up, and the manufacturers would just pocket what money would have been set aside for taxes. Again, of course, dictated by the product's price elasticity. If the price of table salt went up by 20% I doubt anyone would really notice on the household level, but if the price of gas went up by 20% everyone would riot in the streets. Therefore such a changeover unfairly burdens firms that produce or specialize in products with elastic prices.

The point is that 1)it's not that simple and 2)if you flipped a switch overnight to change our taxation model things would blow up.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

If anyone wants to ban the unions from making campaign contributions, I might support them.

Okay, so let me hide this.

Spoiler:
Dear Steward:

Teamsters' Local --
President --------
invites you to:

Meet & Greet with Elizabeth Warren, Working Families U.S. Senate Candidate
Wednesday, May 9th @ 5:30 PM
SEIU 1199 Union Hall (by the Bayside Expo Center)
150 Mount Vernon Street in Dorchester, MA

We have an historic opportunity to elect Elizabeth Warren to the U.S. Senate. 2012 is an important
election year and the labor movement deserves a U.S. Senator that will fight for a strong economy,
our communities, and our families on Capitol Hill.

Join us on Wednesday, May 9 th and learn why Elizabeth Warren is Labor’s candidate. Learn
about where she stands on issues important to you, her values and how we can work together to
ensure a brighter future for labor and all of Massachusetts.

We encourage you to be bring your families to this important event, because we all have a stake in
the future of our great state.

The event is free.
Food and refreshments will be served.
Please RSVP to...

Now, this is exactly the shiznit I'm talking about.

At the last union meeting I attended, the president told this long story about how he went to meet Ms. Warren and interview her about an endorsement. And they talked about the Buffet rule and they talked about health care and she said all the right stuff and then he told her that one of our shops was on strike and would she care to visit the picket line?

And, no, Ms. Warren didn't want to do that.

And so the president informed her that we would be declining to endorse her run for office. And when it was time for the International to dole out the money for political candidates, he blocked hers saying that she wasn't getting a dime until she walked with our strikers. And then, out of the blue, she calls him up and says "When can I visit your picket line?" (Applause, applause)

This is "Labor's candidate"?!? No wonder we're so screwed.

Break with the Democrats!
For a Worker's Government!
Vive le Galt!

Shadow Lodge

thejeff wrote:
Just dropping all other taxes and going to a 20% rate with no deductions would bring in much less revenue than the current system.

I am 100% okay with this.


Orthos wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Just dropping all other taxes and going to a 20% rate with no deductions would bring in much less revenue than the current system.
I am 100% okay with this.

Guess we'll just run bigger deficits then.

Shadow Lodge

thejeff wrote:
Orthos wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Just dropping all other taxes and going to a 20% rate with no deductions would bring in much less revenue than the current system.
I am 100% okay with this.
Guess we'll just run bigger deficits then.

I'd personally prefer a lot of people and departments get a well-deserved salary slashing.

Hey a guy can dream.

Cheliax

Irontruth wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


So you think that a family of 4 with an income of $22,000, should receive zero benefits and pay into the system?
Where did I say they should receive zero benefits?

You said they should have skin in the game. I take that to mean that they have to pay money into the system. If they are going to get money from the system, isn't it simpler to just let them keep their money? Or are you saying the government should decide how they spend a portion of their income?

Here's a couple things to help make it clear, fill this out:

Income: $22,000
Taxes paid: XXXX
Benefit received: XXXX

The actual numbers don't matter, but replace the X's with an approximation of what you think they should be. We're not going to quibble over $2000 vs $2500, but just put some numbers in to give the general idea of what you think.

Since you are setting the situation why don't you tell me what a family of 4 making $22,000 should pay and what kind of benefits they should receive?

If in So.Cal remember to include the cost to educate at $29,000 per kid/per year that are currently enrolled in public education (k-12). Otherwise 10k per kid would suffice.

thejeff" wrote:
Guess we'll just run bigger deficits then

Or you could always cut spending and try to run a more efficient system of Gov't and appropriately paid public sector jobs.


Auxmaulous wrote:

If in So.Cal remember to include the cost to educate at $29,000 per kid/per year that are currently enrolled in public education (k-12).

Really? That seems awful high.


Orthos wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Orthos wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Just dropping all other taxes and going to a 20% rate with no deductions would bring in much less revenue than the current system.
I am 100% okay with this.
Guess we'll just run bigger deficits then.

I'd personally prefer a lot of people and departments get a well-deserved salary slashing.

Hey a guy can dream.

You know I'm going to point something out here: A little research. In case you don't want to read that it goes into the following:

We currently have about 330 million people in the USA.
We have about 1.9 million federal employees of which 1.6 million are military.
This means we have some 300,000 people taking care of 330,000,000 people.
Those 300,000 are spread out across all the services the federal goverment offers: From the FDA to the interior department (with 3.97 square miles of country taken care of by 67,000 people) to the transportation department (with 55,000 people taking care of over 55 million miles of road) to departments like energy with only 15,000 people to perform inspections on every company and site that handles our energy in (and in some cases out of) our country and the 33,000 people taking care of our federal judicial system.

I think almost the exact opposite of you: That there aren't enough people getting paid enough to do what we keep asking them to do.

If private business ran as well and on as little as our government does everyone would be in some form of manufacturing.

Also please note that a very large portion of our national budget ends up being handed over to the states that then rather ineptly spend it (often republican states that crow about how great of a job they are doing managing their state -- which is only in the black because of Federal funds: Yes I'm looking at you Indiana).


Orthos wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Orthos wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Just dropping all other taxes and going to a 20% rate with no deductions would bring in much less revenue than the current system.
I am 100% okay with this.
Guess we'll just run bigger deficits then.

I'd personally prefer a lot of people and departments get a well-deserved salary slashing.

Hey a guy can dream.

The theory of cutting taxes to force spending cuts has been around since Reagan at least. It's never happened. Tax cuts lead to deficits.

We may get some cuts in social spending but the overall budget still grows.
If you want to cut spending, cut spending. Once you're running a surplus and get a bit ahead on actually paying down the debt, then start cutting taxes.
Don't pretend that cutting taxes will magically force it to happen.

Shadow Lodge

Abraham spalding wrote:
I think almost the exact opposite of you: That there aren't enough people getting paid enough to do what we keep asking them to do.

I'm perfectly okay with asking them to do less for me. Hell if they'd just leave me alone I'd be happy.

What I really want is the IRS, like any organization that asks me for money, to send me a bill. Simple as that. Preferably with the option to eliminate my financial support for things I don't support.

Heck, having an opt-out option on pretty much everything "provided" by the government would solve half my complaints. Don't want to pay in for benefits, fine you don't get benefits, and you don't get charged the extra taxes or whatever. Want them? Pay the extra. Simple as that.


There's quite a few people in Washington that I would enjoy seeing lose their jobs, if not their heads. We could probably slash a lot out of the departments that are responsible for spying on us and assassinating foreigners. I wouldn't cry if a lot of those military jobs were either done away with or converted into something else, either.


Orthos wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
I think almost the exact opposite of you: That there aren't enough people getting paid enough to do what we keep asking them to do.

I'm perfectly okay with asking them to do less for me. Hell if they'd just leave me alone I'd be happy.

What I really want is the IRS, like any organization that asks me for money, to send me a bill. Simple as that. Preferably with the option to eliminate my financial support for things I don't support.

Heck, having an opt-out option on pretty much everything "provided" by the government would solve half my complaints.

If you don't care, Citizen Orthos, then why are you editing your posts?

Shadow Lodge

Cause "don't care" was badly worded and I felt needed better phrasing.

And because I can.


See--you do care! [Hugs Citizen Orthos]

Shadow Lodge

ITS TOUCHING ME


Orthos wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
I think almost the exact opposite of you: That there aren't enough people getting paid enough to do what we keep asking them to do.

I'm perfectly okay with asking them to do less for me. Hell if they'd just leave me alone I'd be happy.

What I really want is the IRS, like any organization that asks me for money, to send me a bill. Simple as that. Preferably with the option to eliminate my financial support for things I don't support.

Heck, having an opt-out option on pretty much everything "provided" by the government would solve half my complaints. Don't want to pay in for benefits, fine you don't get benefits, and you don't get charged the extra taxes or whatever. Want them? Pay the extra. Simple as that.

So what are you going to opt out on? Clean water? Roads? Power? The internet? Perhaps you want to opt out of our public safety programs (the military and police)? How about you opt out of the FDA -- after all medicine and food were so safe before the FDA existed that we just created them for the fun of it. Would you like to opt out of the national weather service? Consumer protections then (those that are left after we have allowed corporations to continuously dismantle them)? Environmental protections?

How would you suggest 'opting out' should work for these things? If you opt out of environmental protections should corporations be allowed to dump whatever they want on your property (or home) regardless of the dangers that poses to your neighbors? If you opt out of environmental protections and then proceed to pollute your land to the point of damaging your neighbor's who have 'opted in' for environmental protections what are their options since you 'opted out' and aren't covered? How do you price the opt in?

The problem with your position is that society as a whole has decided these things are important. Part of being a member of a society is living with decisions that society makes even when you disagree with them, because society is actually a social contract -- once you break that contract everything falls apart.

By all means continue the discussion but don't pretend you can just take your ball and go home with no consequences.

EDIT:
I would finally point out that every service that has been turned over from governmental to private hands has suffered worse quality, worse performance, and generally wasted more than it did in governmental hands. Privatization has a pretty poor record in these areas.

I would suggest a large part of why our country is having so many problems is because we don't let it work and keep insisting on it not helping us while making it weaker.

Which is a really silly thing to do honestly -- the government is the power of the people... and people want to keep reducing our power.

A country with a strong government doesn't fall -- one with a small or weak government does however. We are a big country as such we need a big government to take care of it.

Shadow Lodge

A lot of my complaint rests on that lack of ability to up and leave, to be honest. There's literally nowhere in the world one can go that isn't already held under someone else's thumb. There's no frontier. There's no "leave behind the conveniences of modern life and forge out on your own". There's no way out of decisions that others made on your behalf.


Orthos wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
I think almost the exact opposite of you: That there aren't enough people getting paid enough to do what we keep asking them to do.

I'm perfectly okay with asking them to do less for me. Hell if they'd just leave me alone I'd be happy.

What I really want is the IRS, like any organization that asks me for money, to send me a bill. Simple as that. Preferably with the option to eliminate my financial support for things I don't support.

Heck, having an opt-out option on pretty much everything "provided" by the government would solve half my complaints. Don't want to pay in for benefits, fine you don't get benefits, and you don't get charged the extra taxes or whatever. Want them? Pay the extra. Simple as that.

Yeah. That works well.

Everyone who doesn't need the benefits opts out of paying for them. Everyone who needs them doesn't have the money to pay for them. Assuming we're talking about social benefit type things here.

For other things, exactly how do you opt out of needing the military? It's not like they can defend my neighbor, but not me. That's where the largest chunk of the money goes. (Mind you, I'd be happy to, but I don't see how it works on an individual basis.)
Or any of a hundred other things.


Abraham spalding wrote:


Perhaps you want to opt out of our public safety programs (the military and police)?

Yes, please.


Orthos wrote:
A lot of my complaint rests on that lack of ability to up and leave, to be honest. There's literally nowhere in the world one can go that isn't already held under someone else's thumb. There's no frontier. There's no "leave behind the conveniences of modern life and forge out on your own". There's no way out of decisions that others made on your behalf.

May I suggest sunny Papau New Guinea?


thejeff wrote:


For other things, exactly how do you opt out of needing the military? It's not like they can defend my neighbor, but not me. That's where the largest chunk of the money goes. (Mind you, I'd be happy to, but I don't see how it works on an individual basis.)
Or any of a hundred other things.

Oh, you already know what I don't need the military for.


Orthos wrote:
A lot of my complaint rests on that lack of ability to up and leave, to be honest. There's literally nowhere in the world one can go that isn't already held under someone else's thumb. There's no frontier. There's no "leave behind the conveniences of modern life and forge out on your own". There's no way out of decisions that others made on your behalf.

Somalia is lacking a government. What you are asking for is to be a hermit. You don't want society at all. Well... do it. Leave -- you can do it and you can continue to move as you wish.

What you cannot do is have your cake and eat it too by 'having no one else make decisions on your behalf' and still have all the conveniences of modern life -- which I suspect is what you really mean when you say there is no where to go (because there are plenty of such places left in the world).

Shadow Lodge

Huh, might have to look into that. Certainly something I've considered more than once.

Anyway, nice talkin' with you.

Cheliax

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:

If in So.Cal remember to include the cost to educate at $29,000 per kid/per year that are currently enrolled in public education (k-12).

Really? That seems awful high.

LAUSD has run Los Angeles into the ground. Teachers and a few other public unions pretty much run California.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Orthos wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
I think almost the exact opposite of you: That there aren't enough people getting paid enough to do what we keep asking them to do.

I'm perfectly okay with asking them to do less for me. Hell if they'd just leave me alone I'd be happy.

What I really want is the IRS, like any organization that asks me for money, to send me a bill. Simple as that. Preferably with the option to eliminate my financial support for things I don't support.

Heck, having an opt-out option on pretty much everything "provided" by the government would solve half my complaints. Don't want to pay in for benefits, fine you don't get benefits, and you don't get charged the extra taxes or whatever. Want them? Pay the extra. Simple as that.

And what services would you like them to cut?

Our Judicial system? - a system that is already taxed too thin (I wouldn't mind seeing laws reworked to make it less important) How would you opt out of taking criminals off the street?

How about our roads? - I don't know about you but I like being able to drive on intersates. They are usually some of the best taken care of, but still need massive monetary investments. Estimate $1,000,000 per mile of 2 lane highway, and it only lasts ~10 years before needed repairs. Don't want to ever drive on those roads, or recieve goods transported on them? Our rail system is maintained with a lot of federal funding, we could toss that out too.

How about cutting OSHA or EPE? We could go back to the 50s and 60s where companies poisoned their workers and communities. How would you opt out of air quality testing or workplace safty inspections? How about safety standards that make sure your power plants don't blow up?

All of these departments are currently understaffed and strained.


LAUSD?

I highly doubt the unions run California. But if they do, that's cool with me.


Orthos wrote:

Huh, might have to look into that. Certainly something I've considered more than once.

Anyway, nice talkin' with you.

If you do -- hats off to you. Not many people have the courage of their convictions to go through with something like that when they realize the amount of conveniences they would have to give up (including the 'security' of knowing you'll probably be alive the next day).


Caineach wrote:
Orthos wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
I think almost the exact opposite of you: That there aren't enough people getting paid enough to do what we keep asking them to do.

I'm perfectly okay with asking them to do less for me. Hell if they'd just leave me alone I'd be happy.

What I really want is the IRS, like any organization that asks me for money, to send me a bill. Simple as that. Preferably with the option to eliminate my financial support for things I don't support.

Heck, having an opt-out option on pretty much everything "provided" by the government would solve half my complaints. Don't want to pay in for benefits, fine you don't get benefits, and you don't get charged the extra taxes or whatever. Want them? Pay the extra. Simple as that.

And what services would you like them to cut?

Our Judicial system? - a system that is already taxed too thin (I wouldn't mind seeing laws reworked to make it less important) How would you opt out of taking criminals off the street?

How about our roads? - I don't know about you but I like being able to drive on intersates. They are usually some of the best taken care of, but still need massive monetary investments. Estimate $1,000,000 per mile of 2 lane highway, and it only lasts ~10 years before needed repairs. Don't want to ever drive on those roads, or recieve goods transported on them? Our rail system is maintained with a lot of federal funding, we could toss that out too.

How about cutting OSHA or EPE? We could go back to the 50s and 60s where companies poisoned their workers and communities. How would you opt out of air quality testing or workplace safty inspections? How about safety standards that make sure your power plants don't blow up?

All of these departments are currently understaffed and strained.

I'm pretty sure Citizen Orthos doesn't want to play any of our politroll games.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Orthos wrote:

Huh, might have to look into that. Certainly something I've considered more than once.

Anyway, nice talkin' with you.

If you do -- hats off to you. Not many people have the courage of their convictions to go through with something like that when they realize the amount of conveniences they would have to give up (including the 'security' of knowing you'll probably be alive the next day).

Oh, Abraham. Now you just look silly.

EDIT: Hee hee! I misread your post. Now I look silly.

Shadow Lodge

Abraham spalding wrote:
Orthos wrote:

Huh, might have to look into that. Certainly something I've considered more than once.

Anyway, nice talkin' with you.

If you do -- hats off to you. Not many people have the courage of their convictions to go through with something like that when they realize the amount of conveniences they would have to give up (including the 'security' of knowing you'll probably be alive the next day).

It'll be a long time coming either way, as it's not something to be leaped into without proper thought and preparation.

I should clarify a few things, as my prior wording jumped the gun a bit judging by some of the replies. As much as I grumble, I do support most of the institutions you all have mentioned, and have no complaints about paying in my share while I use them. (Though I'd prefer they be treated as "pay for use" rather than "pay prior to use", that's a minor nitpick as well as understandably difficult to actually implement.)

The majority of things I'd prefer an opt-out option on would be things like extra military spending during wars I don't support (it's one thing to pay in to support keeping a steady, trained, supported military, it's another thing to pay in to fund a war like the three or so we're in now... think of it kind of like Conscientious Objector, but with money rather than skills/another body on the battlefield), any form of state-run healthcare program (I do not plan on utilizing Medicare/Medicaid myself, but still have to pay into it), or most support programs (I think most charities and some churches do a much better job at this, and that's where my money goes).

And the court system in this country is a mess and a half, let's be honest and leave it at that.


Auxmaulous wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:

If in So.Cal remember to include the cost to educate at $29,000 per kid/per year that are currently enrolled in public education (k-12).

Really? That seems awful high.
LAUSD has run Los Angeles into the ground. Teachers and a few other public unions pretty much run California.

I'm going to need a source for that figure before I give it any credence. The numbers I found on a quick search put in closer to the $8000 range, which is closer to what I'd expect.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:


For other things, exactly how do you opt out of needing the military? It's not like they can defend my neighbor, but not me. That's where the largest chunk of the money goes. (Mind you, I'd be happy to, but I don't see how it works on an individual basis.)
Or any of a hundred other things.
Oh, you already know what I don't need the military for.

Right. And I largely agree with you.

But how, practically speaking, do you opt out of military defense? Can someone invade the US without fighting our military as long as they only attack people who've checked the "opt out of military" box?


Who the hell is going to invade us? I mean, seriously?

Btw, Comrade Jeff, since you never come into the bestest thread on Paizo, what are you currently reading?


Orthos wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Orthos wrote:

Huh, might have to look into that. Certainly something I've considered more than once.

Anyway, nice talkin' with you.

If you do -- hats off to you. Not many people have the courage of their convictions to go through with something like that when they realize the amount of conveniences they would have to give up (including the 'security' of knowing you'll probably be alive the next day).

It'll be a long time coming either way, as it's not something to be leaped into without proper thought and preparation.

I should clarify a few things, as my prior wording jumped the gun a bit judging by some of the replies. As much as I grumble, I do support most of the institutions you all have mentioned, and have no complaints about paying in my share while I use them. (Though I'd prefer they be treated as "pay for use" rather than "pay prior to use", that's a minor nitpick as well as understandably difficult to actually implement.)

The majority of things I'd prefer an opt-out option on would be things like extra military spending during wars I don't support (it's one thing to pay in to support keeping a steady, trained, supported military, it's another thing to pay in to fund a war like the three or so we're in now... think of it kind of like Conscientious Objector, but with money rather than skills/another body on the battlefield), any form of state-run healthcare program (I do not plan on utilizing Medicare/Medicaid myself, but still have to pay into it), or most support programs (I think most charities and some churches do a much better job at this, and that's where my money goes).

And the court system in this country is a mess and a half, let's be honest and leave it at that.

Well I can't commit too much on the military spending (seeing as how I'm enlisted and start boot in July) but I do agree our funds in general could be spent in a wiser fashion.

Funnily enough I think a single payer system for healthcare is a great idea for business reasons (beyond the moral reasons involved) and would do a great number in helping our companies be more competitive in the global market.

I have a large problem with many charities -- especially considering how many times I've seen donations be turned down by them because they came from the 'wrong' people or how many times the people that get help are only the 'right' kind of people. However there is another reason I really like government run support programs -- the fact people like you help pay for them.

This is not an insult to you by the way. The way I see it you grumble about having to provide that support. You want that money back yourself -- so you look for ways to make that support unneeded. You look for ways to stop people from falling through and it brings the people that are falling through to your face and makes you look at them. Many times (indeed I would venture most times) the reason those people are where they are at is a single bad choice or simple bad luck -- things that can happen to anyone.

Finally so much of what we get is simply from having the good luck to be in a country that provides those support systems. I doubt a single person on this board could go back as much little as 4 generations and not find someone in their family that needed and deserved the help they got from a government support program. Help that didn't put an undue burden on their family and neighbors that they would have had to rely on instead (family members that often are having a hard enough time as is).

Cheliax

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

LAUSD?

I highly doubt the unions run California. But if they do, that's cool with me.

So you would be cool if the students were getting a piss-poor education, as long as the institutions are run by the Unions?

thejeff wrote:
I'm going to need a source for that figure before I give it any credence. The numbers I found on a quick search put in closer to the $8000 range, which is closer to what I'd expect.

I think the number you sourced was per student for Private schools (around $8,500).

Here is my source - works for the Cato Institute
Link

That was my source, go ahead and list yours.


Auxmaulous wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

LAUSD?

I highly doubt the unions run California. But if they do, that's cool with me.

So you would be cool if the students were getting a piss-poor education, as long as the institutions are run by the Unions?

Are you honestly taking Comrade Anklebiter seriously? And then getting what he said wrong too?

He stated, "I highly doubt the unions run California. But if they do, that's cool with me."

Not, "I'm cool with California being run into the ground as long as unions do it."

These two statements are not the same thing.


Auxmaulous wrote:

Here is my source - works for the Cato Institute

Link

That was my source, go ahead and list yours.

Your source cites only 18 school districts across the USA for building it's over all case and doesn't actually provide any data, which makes it a poor source -- that combined with the fact that it's on the opinion page means it's not even a real article. Finally I guess it should be mentioned that the article in question is almost 2 years old.


Hey! What's wrong with taking me serious?!?

I mean, thanks for the back up and all, but...


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Hey! What's wrong with taking me serious?!?

I mean, thanks for the back up and all, but...

True -- I don't know you remind me of Jayne from Firefly... I know your a dangerous nut about to just blow everything away but at the same time my days of not taking you seriously are coming to a middling at best.

I think it's the way you toy with it all.

Shadow Lodge

Abraham spalding wrote:
*Forum ate it*

Definitely. Heck I've been there myself, I was on unemployment for a few months back before I moved. It's not something I would take again, due to my personal convictions and wanting to avoid hypocrisy, but I was younger then and not all of those were in place yet. (Heck, the lack of work and choice between relocation and unemployment again was one of the main reasons I moved. The other was lack of place to live. >_>) Granted, I'd like to think that the age and experience that came with them that I wouldn't make a lot of the mistakes that landed me in that situation in the first place, but that might be overly optimistic, heh.

I certainly wouldn't want to leap straight from support to no-support instantly, despite somewhat exaggerated complaints to the contrary; and due to lack of understanding of most of the minutiae I wouldn't really even know where to begin on trimming something like that down.

For the time being I'm satisfied with keeping my own life as simple as possible, running up as few expenses as necessary and being content to keep to myself. I'm not great with people and tend to ascribe to a "live and let live, please don't bug me too much" mindset.

101 to 150 of 215 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Reasons why Corporations aren't People All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.