Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is that why you want to end Medicaid and food stamps and housing assistance and energy assistance?
What do you think the recipients of that help will do after it's gone?
Would it be pointless to wait for you to tell the truth?
Seems that anything beyond "vote Democrat" is too nuanced for you.
I'm asking you what will happen to the recipients of the welfare system after you've managed to fulfill your desire of ending all of their assistance?
How will that magically make their lives better?
what happened to them before the welfare system? They found jobs. No one wants to eliminate help for the truly needy, those who are physically or mentally unable to care for themselves, but able bodied people should not be given a free meal ticket, free housing, and free energy.
Able bodied people receiving any form of welfare should be required to do public service work before getting their payments-----------clean the streets, paint public buildings, collect the trash, clean the ditches, etc. AND, they should have to pass a drug test before even getting on the list and another one before collecting each payment.
The question is, what should be the source of the help.....the Liberal Welfare System certainly isn't doing the job.
On the contrary:
America's Real Poverty Rate Is Around And About Zero
Would it be pointless to wait for you to tell the truth?
Seems that anything beyond "vote Democrat" is too nuanced for you.
I'm asking you what will happen to the recipients of the welfare system after you've managed to fulfill your desire of ending all of their assistance?
How will that magically make their lives better?
what happened to them before the welfare system? They found jobs. No one wants to eliminate help for the truly needy, those who are physically or mentally unable to care for themselves, but able bodied people should not be given a free meal ticket, free housing, and free energy.
Able bodied people receiving any form of welfare should be required to do public service work before getting their payments-----------clean the streets, paint public buildings, collect the trash, clean the ditches, etc. AND, they should have to pass a drug test before even getting on the list and another one before collecting each payment.
The question is, what should be the source of the help.....the Liberal Welfare System certainly isn't doing the job.
On the contrary:
America's Real Poverty Rate Is Around And About Zero
And now for the fact:
"Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.
Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient."
I'm asking you what will happen to the recipients of the welfare system after you've managed to fulfill your desire of ending all of their assistance?
How will that magically make their lives better?
what happened to them before the welfare system? They found jobs. No one wants to eliminate help for the truly needy, those who are physically or mentally unable to care for themselves, but able bodied people should not be given a free meal ticket, free housing, and free energy.
Able bodied people receiving any form of welfare should be required to do public service work before getting their payments-----------clean the streets, paint public buildings, collect the trash, clean the ditches, etc. AND, they should have to pass a drug test before even getting on the list and another one before collecting each payment.
The question is, what should be the source of the help.....the Liberal Welfare System certainly isn't doing the job.
we all know that private charity works better and more efficiently, but the reality of the USA today is that there isn't enough private charity to cover those truly In need.
for the record, I have no sympathy for able bodied people who are too lazy to work, or even look for work.
Actually, we don't know that.
Roosevelt took over private charity based on the enormous numbers of unemployed that the creates....or at least, added to.
Prior to Franklin Roosevelt, welfare was handled by charities and churches, carefully considering who got the relief, and the reasons for same.
Under FDR, welfare and charity became a patronage endeavor, to get votes rather than to ease suffering.
The Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) doled out relief nationally to those states with the best political connections. The Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 1932 began with the best of intentions...but under the Democrats it went to well-connected friends, including mayors and governors.
Illinois, a swing state, got $55,443,721, which was almost 20% of the RFC's $300 million, more than NY, California, and Texas combined.
Murray Rothbard, "America's Great Depression," p.262-263.
But in terms of functionality....private charity is far more efficacious.
Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that human needs were taken care of by other human beings- not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the former also dealt with the human spirit and behavior.
Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..
Conservatives just want to let the poor experience poverty to its fullest on the theory that the pain will make them magically leap out of poverty.
Would it be pointless to wait for you to tell the truth?
Seems that anything beyond "vote Democrat" is too nuanced for you.
I'm asking you what will happen to the recipients of the welfare system after you've managed to fulfill your desire of ending all of their assistance?
How will that magically make their lives better?
what happened to them before the welfare system? They found jobs. No one wants to eliminate help for the truly needy, those who are physically or mentally unable to care for themselves, but able bodied people should not be given a free meal ticket, free housing, and free energy.
Able bodied people receiving any form of welfare should be required to do public service work before getting their payments-----------clean the streets, paint public buildings, collect the trash, clean the ditches, etc. AND, they should have to pass a drug test before even getting on the list and another one before collecting each payment.
The question is, what should be the source of the help.....the Liberal Welfare System certainly isn't doing the job.
On the contrary:
America's Real Poverty Rate Is Around And About Zero
And now for the fact:
"Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.
Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient."
what happened to them before the welfare system? They found jobs. No one wants to eliminate help for the truly needy, those who are physically or mentally unable to care for themselves, but able bodied people should not be given a free meal ticket, free housing, and free energy.
Able bodied people receiving any form of welfare should be required to do public service work before getting their payments-----------clean the streets, paint public buildings, collect the trash, clean the ditches, etc. AND, they should have to pass a drug test before even getting on the list and another one before collecting each payment.
The question is, what should be the source of the help.....the Liberal Welfare System certainly isn't doing the job.
we all know that private charity works better and more efficiently, but the reality of the USA today is that there isn't enough private charity to cover those truly In need.
for the record, I have no sympathy for able bodied people who are too lazy to work, or even look for work.
Actually, we don't know that.
Roosevelt took over private charity based on the enormous numbers of unemployed that the creates....or at least, added to.
Prior to Franklin Roosevelt, welfare was handled by charities and churches, carefully considering who got the relief, and the reasons for same.
Under FDR, welfare and charity became a patronage endeavor, to get votes rather than to ease suffering.
The Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) doled out relief nationally to those states with the best political connections. The Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 1932 began with the best of intentions...but under the Democrats it went to well-connected friends, including mayors and governors.
Illinois, a swing state, got $55,443,721, which was almost 20% of the RFC's $300 million, more than NY, California, and Texas combined.
Murray Rothbard, "America's Great Depression," p.262-263.
But in terms of functionality....private charity is far more efficacious.
Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that human needs were taken care of by other human beings- not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the former also dealt with the human spirit and behavior.
Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..
Conservatives just want to let the poor experience poverty to its fullest on the theory that the pain will make them magically leap out of poverty.
Welfare, education, domestic or foreign policy.....Liberals are failures wherever one finds them.
The basic Liberal pattern prevails:
Good intentions plus coercion equals solution
I'm asking you what will happen to the recipients of the welfare system after you've managed to fulfill your desire of ending all of their assistance?
How will that magically make their lives better?
what happened to them before the welfare system? They found jobs. No one wants to eliminate help for the truly needy, those who are physically or mentally unable to care for themselves, but able bodied people should not be given a free meal ticket, free housing, and free energy.
Able bodied people receiving any form of welfare should be required to do public service work before getting their payments-----------clean the streets, paint public buildings, collect the trash, clean the ditches, etc. AND, they should have to pass a drug test before even getting on the list and another one before collecting each payment.
The question is, what should be the source of the help.....the Liberal Welfare System certainly isn't doing the job.
On the contrary:
America's Real Poverty Rate Is Around And About Zero
And now for the fact:
"Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.
Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient."
I just proved that the poverty level has been lowered dramatically. Go back and read it.
what happened to them before the welfare system? They found jobs. No one wants to eliminate help for the truly needy, those who are physically or mentally unable to care for themselves, but able bodied people should not be given a free meal ticket, free housing, and free energy.
Able bodied people receiving any form of welfare should be required to do public service work before getting their payments-----------clean the streets, paint public buildings, collect the trash, clean the ditches, etc. AND, they should have to pass a drug test before even getting on the list and another one before collecting each payment.
The question is, what should be the source of the help.....the Liberal Welfare System certainly isn't doing the job.
On the contrary:
America's Real Poverty Rate Is Around And About Zero
And now for the fact:
"Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.
Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient."
I just proved that the poverty level has been lowered dramatically. Go back and read it.
Liar.
"Poverty Up 30.5% for Americans 18 to 64 Since LBJ Declared War on Poverty"
Poverty Up 30.5% for Americans 18 to 64 Since LBJ Declared War on Poverty
Would it be pointless to wait for you to tell the truth?
Seems that anything beyond "vote Democrat" is too nuanced for you.
I'm asking you what will happen to the recipients of the welfare system after you've managed to fulfill your desire of ending all of their assistance?
How will that magically make their lives better?
what happened to them before the welfare system? They found jobs. No one wants to eliminate help for the truly needy, those who are physically or mentally unable to care for themselves, but able bodied people should not be given a free meal ticket, free housing, and free energy.
Able bodied people receiving any form of welfare should be required to do public service work before getting their payments-----------clean the streets, paint public buildings, collect the trash, clean the ditches, etc. AND, they should have to pass a drug test before even getting on the list and another one before collecting each payment.
The question is, what should be the source of the help.....the Liberal Welfare System certainly isn't doing the job.
we all know that private charity works better and more efficiently, but the reality of the USA today is that there isn't enough private charity to cover those truly In need.
for the record, I have no sympathy for able bodied people who are too lazy to work, or even look for work.
Charity does not work better. Take note too that the flat tax here does away with the charitable deduction.
I'm asking you what will happen to the recipients of the welfare system after you've managed to fulfill your desire of ending all of their assistance?
How will that magically make their lives better?
what happened to them before the welfare system? They found jobs. No one wants to eliminate help for the truly needy, those who are physically or mentally unable to care for themselves, but able bodied people should not be given a free meal ticket, free housing, and free energy.
Able bodied people receiving any form of welfare should be required to do public service work before getting their payments-----------clean the streets, paint public buildings, collect the trash, clean the ditches, etc. AND, they should have to pass a drug test before even getting on the list and another one before collecting each payment.
The question is, what should be the source of the help.....the Liberal Welfare System certainly isn't doing the job.
we all know that private charity works better and more efficiently, but the reality of the USA today is that there isn't enough private charity to cover those truly In need.
for the record, I have no sympathy for able bodied people who are too lazy to work, or even look for work.
Actually, we don't know that.
Roosevelt took over private charity based on the enormous numbers of unemployed that the creates....or at least, added to.
Prior to Franklin Roosevelt, welfare was handled by charities and churches, carefully considering who got the relief, and the reasons for same.
Under FDR, welfare and charity became a patronage endeavor, to get votes rather than to ease suffering.
The Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) doled out relief nationally to those states with the best political connections. The Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 1932 began with the best of intentions...but under the Democrats it went to well-connected friends, including mayors and governors.
Illinois, a swing state, got $55,443,721, which was almost 20% of the RFC's $300 million, more than NY, California, and Texas combined.
Murray Rothbard, "America's Great Depression," p.262-263.
But in terms of functionality....private charity is far more efficacious.
Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that human needs were taken care of by other human beings- not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the former also dealt with the human spirit and behavior.
Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..
Conservatives just want to let the poor experience poverty to its fullest on the theory that the pain will make them magically leap out of poverty.
Would it be pointless to wait for you to tell the truth?
Seems that anything beyond "vote Democrat" is too nuanced for you.
I'm asking you what will happen to the recipients of the welfare system after you've managed to fulfill your desire of ending all of their assistance?
How will that magically make their lives better?
what happened to them before the welfare system? They found jobs. No one wants to eliminate help for the truly needy, those who are physically or mentally unable to care for themselves, but able bodied people should not be given a free meal ticket, free housing, and free energy.
Able bodied people receiving any form of welfare should be required to do public service work before getting their payments-----------clean the streets, paint public buildings, collect the trash, clean the ditches, etc. AND, they should have to pass a drug test before even getting on the list and another one before collecting each payment.
The question is, what should be the source of the help.....the Liberal Welfare System certainly isn't doing the job.
we all know that private charity works better and more efficiently, but the reality of the USA today is that there isn't enough private charity to cover those truly In need.
for the record, I have no sympathy for able bodied people who are too lazy to work, or even look for work.
Actually, we don't know that.
Roosevelt took over private charity based on the enormous numbers of unemployed that the created....or at least, added to.
Prior to Franklin Roosevelt, welfare was handled by charities and churches, carefully considering who got the relief, and the reasons for same.
Under FDR, welfare and charity became a patronage endeavor, to get votes rather than to ease suffering.
The Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) doled out relief nationally to those states with the best political connections. The Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 1932 began with the best of intentions...but under the Democrats it went to well-connected friends, including mayors and governors.
Illinois, a swing state, got $55,443,721, which was almost 20% of the RFC's $300 million, more than NY, California, and Texas combined.
Murray Rothbard, "America's Great Depression," p.262-263.
But in terms of functionality....private charity is far more efficacious.
Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that human needs were taken care of by other human beings- not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the former also dealt with the human spirit and behavior.
Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..
The question is, what should be the source of the help.....the Liberal Welfare System certainly isn't doing the job.
On the contrary:
America's Real Poverty Rate Is Around And About Zero
And now for the fact:
"Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.
Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient."
I just proved that the poverty level has been lowered dramatically. Go back and read it.
Liar.
"Poverty Up 30.5% for Americans 18 to 64 Since LBJ Declared War on Poverty"
Poverty Up 30.5% for Americans 18 to 64 Since LBJ Declared War on Poverty
Not true. I posted the link that proves you wrong, your childish refusal to read it notwithstanding.
And now for the fact:
"Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.
Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient."
I just proved that the poverty level has been lowered dramatically. Go back and read it.
Liar.
"Poverty Up 30.5% for Americans 18 to 64 Since LBJ Declared War on Poverty"
Poverty Up 30.5% for Americans 18 to 64 Since LBJ Declared War on Poverty
Not true. I posted the link that proves you wrong, your childish refusal to read it notwithstanding.
would you like to see socialist democrat welfare at its finest? visit an indian reservation.
or, you could visit Detroit.
I'm asking you what will happen to the recipients of the welfare system after you've managed to fulfill your desire of ending all of their assistance?
How will that magically make their lives better?
what happened to them before the welfare system? They found jobs. No one wants to eliminate help for the truly needy, those who are physically or mentally unable to care for themselves, but able bodied people should not be given a free meal ticket, free housing, and free energy.
Able bodied people receiving any form of welfare should be required to do public service work before getting their payments-----------clean the streets, paint public buildings, collect the trash, clean the ditches, etc. AND, they should have to pass a drug test before even getting on the list and another one before collecting each payment.
The question is, what should be the source of the help.....the Liberal Welfare System certainly isn't doing the job.
we all know that private charity works better and more efficiently, but the reality of the USA today is that there isn't enough private charity to cover those truly In need.
for the record, I have no sympathy for able bodied people who are too lazy to work, or even look for work.
Actually, we don't know that.
Roosevelt took over private charity based on the enormous numbers of unemployed that the created....or at least, added to.
Prior to Franklin Roosevelt, welfare was handled by charities and churches, carefully considering who got the relief, and the reasons for same.
Under FDR, welfare and charity became a patronage endeavor, to get votes rather than to ease suffering.
The Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) doled out relief nationally to those states with the best political connections. The Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 1932 began with the best of intentions...but under the Democrats it went to well-connected friends, including mayors and governors.
Illinois, a swing state, got $55,443,721, which was almost 20% of the RFC's $300 million, more than NY, California, and Texas combined.
Murray Rothbard, "America's Great Depression," p.262-263.
But in terms of functionality....private charity is far more efficacious.
Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that human needs were taken care of by other human beings- not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the former also dealt with the human spirit and behavior.
Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..
its no secret that the entire democrat welfare system is an attempt to buy votes, everyone understands that except a few brainwashed democrat sheep.
Income tax is unconstitutional
And? As if the recession ends and all of a sudden everything just goes back to how it was. It doesn't. Sorry, things aren't that simple.
It's been over for years
Yeah, let's pretend that this whole thing is really simple, and that when it finishes everything reverts back to normal, shall we?
Or maybe you could look into past recessions and see when the impact of the recession actually stops.
Unemployment is down. However someone decided that "real unemployment" is what matters now, for the first time ever, and that people who choose not to work are somehow "unemployed".
On the other hand there are issues which will never be solved, not because Obama or any other sucker is in the White House, but because politicians, in both the two leeching parties are unwilling to deal with such problems.
Excuses excuses that's the problem with this cuntry that and all the incessant whining
Excuses? I don't see excuses. Actually trying to find out what the reality is rather than playing silly beggers political partisan bullshit game is not making excuses.
But then passing off reality as "excuses" is an easy way of just passing off stuff you find inconvenient, isn't it?
You're making excuses as why a new simplified fair tax system won't work when it clearly would
Maybe people think that stuff has to be paid for.
Rich people generally make more use of government services than poor people do.
A poor person will make use of their education and their children's education, of the roads they use and other infrastructure.
Businesses make use of the educations of many people, being able to pick and choose from many educated people, they use roads a lot more, using it to get their workforce to work, to get their goods around the country and so on and on.
Why shouldn't rich people pay for what they use?
I hear the claim that so called rich people use government services more
Yet no one has ever proven that
It's obvious that the poor use government services more than the rich
Rich people don't send their kids to public schools, don't get financial aid or default on government guaranteed student loans don't default on government backed mortgages don't use welfare or food stamps don't use public transportation etc etc and they pay the lion's share of taxes
Proven it? What do you need proving?
I work for you, I make use on MY education. You employee 200 people, you make use of 200 people's education. Most of them are likely to have gone through the public education system.
I drive 10 miles to work every day, I make use of 20 miles of road there and back. You employee 200 people you're going to be using 400 miles of road every day just to get your employees to work every day. On top of that the road you need to get your products from one place to another, on top of that the road required in making those products. Then if those products are sold in a shop you'll need to extra road other companies will use in selling those.
Do you need more proof than this?
I could go on and on about security and how much a businessman in Somalia would earn and how much an American businessman in the US would earn.
FYI YOU are using your education not your employer YOU are selling your labor to your employer Your free public education is worth more to you than to any employer and really a public HS education ain't worth that much
YOU are using the roads so YOU can make a living
And any company that ships products over the roads pays far far more in taxes for those roads
Excise and registration fees on every vehicle gas taxes, per mile taxes etc
So really business pays more for the roads than you do
If a businessman travels to Somalia he doesn't get an armed US escort
Okay, FYI, businessman in Somalia who has a very limited workforce when it comes to education, and a US businessman who has a wide variety of education and skills, who do you think is going to earn more money? Go on, tell me.
It doesn't matter whether an individual is selling their labor to you or not. You're able to buy it.
If you want to buy a car and you go to the local shop and you can only buy carrots and bananas, do you think your car is going to earn you as much money as the guy who can go to the local shop and buy all the parts a car usually uses? Do you?
I didn't say the individuals don't make money out of this. You've COMPLETELY missed the point.
And your comment about the businessman who travels to Somalia.... what the feck are you going on about?
If you don't understand what I say, I'd rather you just said you're incapable of understanding rather than pretend you do know and then write some drivel that has nothing to do with what I said.
SO tell me why do businesses consistently set up shop in other countries if the workforce is so poorly educated? obviously your education that the business is supposedly exploiting isn't enough to keep that business here is it? And you mentioned security and somalia not me
You equate you using government roads to make a living to the business getting more out of it than you do the business pays far more for roads via all the additional taxes it pays compared to what you pay to use the same roads
And yet somehow you think businesses are getting more than you from government?
I hear the claim that so called rich people use government services more
Yet no one has ever proven that
It's obvious that the poor use government services more than the rich
Rich people don't send their kids to public schools, don't get financial aid or default on government guaranteed student loans don't default on government backed mortgages don't use welfare or food stamps don't use public transportation etc etc and they pay the lion's share of taxes
Proven it? What do you need proving?
I work for you, I make use on MY education. You employee 200 people, you make use of 200 people's education. Most of them are likely to have gone through the public education system.
I drive 10 miles to work every day, I make use of 20 miles of road there and back. You employee 200 people you're going to be using 400 miles of road every day just to get your employees to work every day. On top of that the road you need to get your products from one place to another, on top of that the road required in making those products. Then if those products are sold in a shop you'll need to extra road other companies will use in selling those.
Do you need more proof than this?
I could go on and on about security and how much a businessman in Somalia would earn and how much an American businessman in the US would earn.
FYI YOU are using your education not your employer YOU are selling your labor to your employer Your free public education is worth more to you than to any employer and really a public HS education ain't worth that much
YOU are using the roads so YOU can make a living
And any company that ships products over the roads pays far far more in taxes for those roads
Excise and registration fees on every vehicle gas taxes, per mile taxes etc
So really business pays more for the roads than you do
If a businessman travels to Somalia he doesn't get an armed US escort
Okay, FYI, businessman in Somalia who has a very limited workforce when it comes to education, and a US businessman who has a wide variety of education and skills, who do you think is going to earn more money? Go on, tell me.
It doesn't matter whether an individual is selling their labor to you or not. You're able to buy it.
If you want to buy a car and you go to the local shop and you can only buy carrots and bananas, do you think your car is going to earn you as much money as the guy who can go to the local shop and buy all the parts a car usually uses? Do you?
I didn't say the individuals don't make money out of this. You've COMPLETELY missed the point.
And your comment about the businessman who travels to Somalia.... what the feck are you going on about?
If you don't understand what I say, I'd rather you just said you're incapable of understanding rather than pretend you do know and then write some drivel that has nothing to do with what I said.
SO tell me why do businesses consistently set up shop in other countries if the workforce is so poorly educated? obviously your education that the business is supposedly exploiting isn't enough to keep that business here is it? And you mentioned security and somalia not me
You equate you using government roads to make a living to the business getting more out of it than you do the business pays far more for roads via all the additional taxes it pays compared to what you pay to use the same roads
And yet somehow you think businesses are getting more than you from government?
They set up shop in other countries because the labor is CHEAPER. Sometimes companies want lower educated workers to do menial tasks. In the US these workers will cost too much because the US has an economy that is on the higher end, which means everything costs more. Which means workers want more money to do the same task.
Yes, I mentioned security and Somalia to you. I didn't not just spurt out the words "security" and "Somalia" and expect you to make a sentence with those two words, I actually made a point.
Back to roads. If a company had to use only private roads, a company would pay FAR MORE MONEY to use those roads than they do right now to use government roads.
Government roads are far more cost effective than private roads. They don't have to employ people to take money off drivers, they don't have to pay for electronic machines which will charge the driver, so everyone saves money, including the business. However businesses will use the roads far more than individuals will.
If you take that into consideration you'll see that businesses should be paying more money for using the roads in tax than individuals.
Proven it? What do you need proving?
I work for you, I make use on MY education. You employee 200 people, you make use of 200 people's education. Most of them are likely to have gone through the public education system.
I drive 10 miles to work every day, I make use of 20 miles of road there and back. You employee 200 people you're going to be using 400 miles of road every day just to get your employees to work every day. On top of that the road you need to get your products from one place to another, on top of that the road required in making those products. Then if those products are sold in a shop you'll need to extra road other companies will use in selling those.
Do you need more proof than this?
I could go on and on about security and how much a businessman in Somalia would earn and how much an American businessman in the US would earn.
FYI YOU are using your education not your employer YOU are selling your labor to your employer Your free public education is worth more to you than to any employer and really a public HS education ain't worth that much
YOU are using the roads so YOU can make a living
And any company that ships products over the roads pays far far more in taxes for those roads
Excise and registration fees on every vehicle gas taxes, per mile taxes etc
So really business pays more for the roads than you do
If a businessman travels to Somalia he doesn't get an armed US escort
Okay, FYI, businessman in Somalia who has a very limited workforce when it comes to education, and a US businessman who has a wide variety of education and skills, who do you think is going to earn more money? Go on, tell me.
It doesn't matter whether an individual is selling their labor to you or not. You're able to buy it.
If you want to buy a car and you go to the local shop and you can only buy carrots and bananas, do you think your car is going to earn you as much money as the guy who can go to the local shop and buy all the parts a car usually uses? Do you?
I didn't say the individuals don't make money out of this. You've COMPLETELY missed the point.
And your comment about the businessman who travels to Somalia.... what the feck are you going on about?
If you don't understand what I say, I'd rather you just said you're incapable of understanding rather than pretend you do know and then write some drivel that has nothing to do with what I said.
SO tell me why do businesses consistently set up shop in other countries if the workforce is so poorly educated? obviously your education that the business is supposedly exploiting isn't enough to keep that business here is it? And you mentioned security and somalia not me
You equate you using government roads to make a living to the business getting more out of it than you do the business pays far more for roads via all the additional taxes it pays compared to what you pay to use the same roads
And yet somehow you think businesses are getting more than you from government?
They set up shop in other countries because the labor is CHEAPER. Sometimes companies want lower educated workers to do menial tasks. In the US these workers will cost too much because the US has an economy that is on the higher end, which means everything costs more. Which means workers want more money to do the same task.
Yes, I mentioned security and Somalia to you. I didn't not just spurt out the words "security" and "Somalia" and expect you to make a sentence with those two words, I actually made a point.
Back to roads. If a company had to use only private roads, a company would pay FAR MORE MONEY to use those roads than they do right now to use government roads.
Government roads are far more cost effective than private roads. They don't have to employ people to take money off drivers, they don't have to pay for electronic machines which will charge the driver, so everyone saves money, including the business. However businesses will use the roads far more than individuals will.
If you take that into consideration you'll see that businesses should be paying more money for using the roads in tax than individuals.
Government roads... LOOOOL.
Whose taxes paid for those "government roads"?
FYI YOU are using your education not your employer YOU are selling your labor to your employer Your free public education is worth more to you than to any employer and really a public HS education ain't worth that much
YOU are using the roads so YOU can make a living
And any company that ships products over the roads pays far far more in taxes for those roads
Excise and registration fees on every vehicle gas taxes, per mile taxes etc
So really business pays more for the roads than you do
If a businessman travels to Somalia he doesn't get an armed US escort
Okay, FYI, businessman in Somalia who has a very limited workforce when it comes to education, and a US businessman who has a wide variety of education and skills, who do you think is going to earn more money? Go on, tell me.
It doesn't matter whether an individual is selling their labor to you or not. You're able to buy it.
If you want to buy a car and you go to the local shop and you can only buy carrots and bananas, do you think your car is going to earn you as much money as the guy who can go to the local shop and buy all the parts a car usually uses? Do you?
I didn't say the individuals don't make money out of this. You've COMPLETELY missed the point.
And your comment about the businessman who travels to Somalia.... what the feck are you going on about?
If you don't understand what I say, I'd rather you just said you're incapable of understanding rather than pretend you do know and then write some drivel that has nothing to do with what I said.
SO tell me why do businesses consistently set up shop in other countries if the workforce is so poorly educated? obviously your education that the business is supposedly exploiting isn't enough to keep that business here is it? And you mentioned security and somalia not me
You equate you using government roads to make a living to the business getting more out of it than you do the business pays far more for roads via all the additional taxes it pays compared to what you pay to use the same roads
And yet somehow you think businesses are getting more than you from government?
They set up shop in other countries because the labor is CHEAPER. Sometimes companies want lower educated workers to do menial tasks. In the US these workers will cost too much because the US has an economy that is on the higher end, which means everything costs more. Which means workers want more money to do the same task.
Yes, I mentioned security and Somalia to you. I didn't not just spurt out the words "security" and "Somalia" and expect you to make a sentence with those two words, I actually made a point.
Back to roads. If a company had to use only private roads, a company would pay FAR MORE MONEY to use those roads than they do right now to use government roads.
Government roads are far more cost effective than private roads. They don't have to employ people to take money off drivers, they don't have to pay for electronic machines which will charge the driver, so everyone saves money, including the business. However businesses will use the roads far more than individuals will.
If you take that into consideration you'll see that businesses should be paying more money for using the roads in tax than individuals.
Government roads... LOOOOL.
Whose taxes paid for those "government roads"?
This is like dealing with children.
Taxes paid for the roads and taxes help with the upkeep of those roads.
Now, the point of what I am saying is that people should pay their fair share. With a flat tax the rich wouldn't be paying their fair share. They'd be paying less for the roads as a percentage than they'd otherwise be paying under a private road system.
