Topic: Why do you all want to take away money from the government? Who will then build - page 5. (Read 5712 times)

That is  not fair, taxes should be the same for everyone.

So people that work harder lose a greater percent of their income? That is the exact opposite of fair. If we cut all non-essential government spending, and taxed a flat rate, than a government would be much more sustainable.

You speak of taxes like they are magic.

How do you get that money from people?

with taxes

one year income  36000$ --------> taxes 5%
one year income  72000$ --------> taxes 10%
one year income  150000$ -------> taxes 25%
one year income  250000$-- -----> taxes 30%
one year income  1000000$ ------> taxes 45%
one year income  +1000000$ -----> taxes 55%

its fair

This is another failed trolling attempt by gabriella and her/his Gabriella's bitcoin death chart (dying because of bitcoin thread). This person does not own and does not believe in bitcoin. That is fine.

Who will save us from Obamacare you meant to say?

Gabriella added to my ignore list.

It's not like the roads are made out of gold; suburban roads are often rarely driven on (some do turn into major roads but most of them aren't), and don't need constant maintenance like the road you take to get to work with all the other people in a traffic jam and whatnot.  Fewer houses or not, poor or rich, it's a non-issue.

Road standards don't change depending on who built it; if everyone knows "I drive on the right", they're going to do it regardless of how you feel.  If you attempt to enforce your strange rule by force, you're probably not going to survive long.  Get mad if you want to

All of these things are already handled by individuals; the illusion is that taxation is necessary or these cease to exist.  We know this is false because if we want these things, and we've wanted for far more sillier things than infrastructure and health, then we will pay for businesses to provide it.  We must begin with the assumption that people aren't incredibly stupid and inept, for if they are, we really don't want them in any position of power anyway.

How should they take those people's money?

BAHAHHAHAHAA!!! Communists would be saying the exact same thing about us, you do realise that people aren't against the idea of having healthcare, streetlights and roads, it's just the idea that you need to steal from people in order to do it is ridiculous. When you guys stop threatening to put me in jail for not paying taxes I'll be happy to fund hospitals for you and I mean that, but as of now it's financial war.

By the way, have a proper research about what communists actually believe instead of doing the American thing of calling anyone who disagrees with you a communist and a liberal.

Goverments, in every country in this world should take away 50-60 %from the richest peoples, like they do with ours salary and let ''ordinary working people'' alone.

that isnt communism its idealism 

Caltrans retaining control of filling potholes on 101 == time to switch to air bag suspension.
That'll set me back like two bitcoins.

Politicians were pencilled in by the founding fathers to protect ourselves from ourselves.  If we could vote to nuke the buhjeezus out of North Korea once and for all... well it would certainly be a different world all around.

How would YOU structure a private road system?

Do you possess the ability to think outside of the box?

I suspect most of the people here saying that the roads would be maintained by the users aren't considering areas where there are fewer houses or poorer families.

The areas with fewer houses will either need to be owned by rich people or they'll have to move closer to town. Fine.

What happens to the poor areas?

What about road standards? I built it, I demand people drive on the left.

What about sewage, water supplies, telecoms infrastructure and of course, health care?

it will be the same people who build the roads today, we'll just be able to do it without the violence of the state.

I could've sworn it was the merchants who built the first roads.

Imagine this: the state went away and nobody worked the roads.  They fell into disrepair; nobody drove on the roads anymore and it really started to hurt businesses; nobody would visit the shops and you couldn't get anything delivered.

Who has the greatest monetary incentive to get the roads in shape?  If Business A gets their roads built faster than competing Business B, they'll have mad profits; there's a rush to get the roads in shape to get a leg up over the competition.  Business C decides to skimp out on the quality and gets their road-builders A to speed the process up.  Road-builders A knows that they will lose business to Road-builders B if they don't keep their standards, but are eager to make a quick buck.  It is later found out that the road to Business C is already crumbling; Business C loses more business than if they'd just made a quality road and pay the price of it, while Businesses A and B flourish with their quality roads, and refuse to do business with Road-builders A due to their previous incompetence; Road-builders A eventually lose business to B, C, and D, and the labor is scooped up into C, as they're in the metro area and have a ton more roads to build; eager for more work, many laborers of Road-builders A accept the offer.  Business flourishes in infrastructure, as every brick & mortar business needs it; the people have their roads and the businesses have their commerce and all is well.

The market works fine, no state required.  Who builds the roads?--the people who gain from the roads being built, that being, all of us.

+1

Solution.  Put the bad guys in charge and let them exploit society. 

Oh and pretend they are good.  Give them titles like honourable and such.  That will make them good.

Like how the government exploits the human race and earth for resources?

except for the bad guys, who would collude with other bad guys to exploit society.

If everyone was doing as they pleased, we would all be working on creating something that we enjoy doing.