Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

I wonder how one would design a "user fee" for criminal courts, jails, national defense, or police.

community service, your time is money

 

Originally Posted by gamma21

I know there are plenty of government employees that work their asses off, but there are also employees like the ones at the post office that are paid to show up and do nothing. I mean, they are literally paid to show up and do absolutely nothing because of strict policies against laying postal workers off.

just wanted 2 point out that "standby time" where we get paid for doing nothing.....isn't a UNION negotiated rule.
it was language ADDED 2 the contract AFTER it was ratified by the employees. the A.P.W.U has always fought AGAINST standby time.

 

Originally Posted by jetsjets1028

Is Dyz advocating for a user fee system for EVERYTHING? Serious question because if he did, I missed it.

. Given that Dyz often spouts off about how all taxes are theft and the government (and those who earn their living from it) is the equivalent of "thugs" and draws analogies to "governments" like bowling leagues and the NCAA that are wholly supported by user fees, it seems clear to me that he thinks government can/should be funded by user fees. Dyz is a slippery character tho, so maybe he'll come in and say I'm misunderstanding him and then refuse to give a straight answer about what he actually wants for the next 4 pages before the thread dies.

 

Originally Posted by akcbr954

well its actually a way for management 2 see where they are wasting $$.

I'll save them the trouble. They are wasting their money with the standby time. Good Grief.

 

Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

. Given that Dyz often spouts off about how all taxes are theft and the government (and those who earn their living from it) is the equivalent of "thugs" and draws analogies to "governments" like bowling leagues and the NCAA that are wholly supported by user fees, it seems clear to me that he thinks government can/should be funded by user fees. Dyz is a slippery character tho, so maybe he'll come in and say I'm misunderstanding him and then refuse to give a straight answer about what he actually wants for the next 4 pages before the thread dies.

I know he says taxes=theft but I think we should be able to differentiate between the two different types of posts that Dyz (and all of us make):

A) How we wish things would be. ie...utopian ideals
B) How we would fix problems using practical solutions. ie...real policy discussion

These debates always get sidetracked because its far easier to attack a radical thing like "taxes=theft" and ignore substantive suggestions like "user fees". Especially if one is trying to discredit his foil or win an argument.

 

Originally Posted by jetsjets1028

I know he says taxes=theft but I think we should be able to differentiate between the two different types of posts that Dyz (and all of us make):

A) How we wish things would be. ie...utopian ideals
B) How we would fix problems using practical solutions. ie...real policy discussion
.

No one on this forum tailors their "practical solutions" more closely to their "utopian" ideals than Dyzalot. For him, "taxes are theft" is not just a moral position, it is also a policy position.

 

Originally Posted by jetsjets1028

We shouldn't be horrified when someone goes out of his way to pay for a service and then doesn't get served.

wait, what?

 

Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

No one on this forum tailors their "practical solutions" more closely to their "utopian" ideals than Dyzalot. For him, "taxes are theft" is not just a moral position, it is also a policy position.

With all due respect, I'd wait for him to say it before I believed that to be true. Too often on here, people like to attach a position to somebody so they can discredit it.

I'm pretty sure that Dyz has clearly stated already ITT that he would not abolish all taxation. Why not just ask him.

Since we are on the subject, how would you feel about an approach like the one he suggested (user fees) where it was practical to do so.

To me, there are clearly some inherent issues but I think that it would go a long way towards curing many of the problems that arise when we blindly throw a program at a government with printing presses that never stop running.

What do you think?

 

Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

wait, what?

LOL...fixed

 

Originally Posted by saxman

I think you might be confusing what was said, Jets. I wasn't talking about paying for a service and not getting served. I was talking about the refusal of services because payment was with held.

or maybe it was a typo....:-)

 

Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

I mean...government already has all kinds of user fees. Courts and bureaucracies have filing fees, application fees, and all other sorts of administrative fees in order to utilize them, many highways have tolls, etc etc etc. And still these agencies require more money to run. Now, I suppose you could argue that they would need less money if you could "trim the fat" or "increase efficiency" or whatever other cliche you want to apply, but the fact would still remain that these sorts of things couldn't exist solely on user fees unless you greatly increased what those user fees were. I don't believe in government that is only accessible to those who have large quantities of money.

edit: also, as I argued to Dyzalot in an earlier thread, I think its pretty easy to conceive of normal taxes as user fees.

bold= ding ding ding
underline= cop out

 

Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

How is that a cop out? The higher user fees are, the less accessible government is to people of fewer financial resources. Equal protection ftmfw

But to what end??

What if your obsession with equal protection results in so much waste in government that we are printing money to pay for them?

Why is it such a terrible idea to devise a system in which the people using the program are the ones paying for it?

Wow I am shocked that willywoo doesn't agree with Obama's job plan!

it's not big enough! MOAR!!!

lol it doesn't matter what kind of ideas he comes up with, you will not like them.

 

Originally Posted by jetsjets1028

But to what end??

What if your obsession with equal protection results in so much waste in government that we are printing money to pay for them?

Why is it such a terrible idea to devise a system in which the people using the program are the ones paying for it?

Traffic tickets spring to mind as a reason I don't like the government trying to fund itself by billing consumers of the service. I feel like public safety has become a secondary motive for police departments that derive a significant portion of their revenue by writing tickets. There are oversight and protection services that the government provides that absolutely should not be privatized or motivated to generate revenue. Other examples that already exist are penitentiaries and military services. Any organization that is in a position, or under mandate to restrict personal freedom should be subject to strict government oversight accountable to the people of the United States. I'm also not a big fan of the amount of influence that the ratings agencies have exerted upon our economy, despite the fact that they were basically just about marketing. Neither the private sector nor the public sector protected the markets, and it doesn't matter if you were a retiree with a million in the market or someone living paycheck to paycheck, your money was impacted by the failure of the market.

 

Originally Posted by Willywoo

If his ideas were to substantively reduce regulation that make operating a small business more costly

I kind of agree with this, but I'm under the impression that most of the regulation that small businesses are subject to are state/local, not federal. I am not in favor of reducing oversight on large corporations, as I believe they exert undo influence far to often to be left completely unchecked. I also believe that the capital gains tax should be abolished, but not the same as you...it is income and should be taxed as such. Get rid of tax credits and deductions altogether, if government wants to pay to subsidize something it should not be the IRS responsible for writing checks (bet it becomes a lot harder to point fingers at welfare recipients standing in line for $400 a month while you're asking for your $10 million energy reimbursement).

tax cuts are evil and destroy the economy except when we need them because they help the economy!

fwiw, lol @ a one-year tax cut helping anything tho