And the rhetoric begins

Moderator: The Merrimack Volunteer Moderators

Postby RBarnes » Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:52 pm

Confucius wrote:
Michael Pelletier wrote:I wasn't particularly offended, as I found your comment to be an interesting insight into your mindset - that you mistake opposition to government funding and operation of worthwhile undertakings for opposition to the undertakings themselves.

It's not a particularly uncommon mistake, unfortunately.


I can't see a viable alternative to the government funding of basic services (education, police, fire, roads, etc). If I don't drive on your street, why should I have to pay for its upkeep? If you don't have kids in school, why should you pay for schools? Ad nauseam. A fully charity based society wouldn't last very long due to basic human nature being self-centered.


While I don't buy into the 100% voluntary funding of all government, some services can and to some extent are taxed on a per use basis.

Roads for instance, you pay a gas tax. The more road you use the more gas you use therefor the more you pay. Now granted this isn't a perfect tax as someone with an SUV would pay more the someone with a hy-bred if they drove the same amount.

Post office we pay for stamps and hence pay for what we use.

Police and fire we need to all pay the same amount for because even if we don't think we need them we ALL do. For instance, if a killer is on the lose and he kills people from the next block over we may not care but if no one tracks him (or her) down someone from our family may end up being their next target. Or that drunk driver the cops stop in the next town over may have driven right into our car if not stopped. But in cases like fire and police I would sooner see a flat tax since we all use them.

And education, I have no problem with the government funding as we all deserve equal education regardless of our families wealth. What I would like though is to see a free market open up as far as running education instead of the one size fits all government schools.
$DO || ! $DO ; try
try: command not found
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Michael Pelletier » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:23 pm

Confucius wrote:I can't see a viable alternative to the government funding of basic services (education, police, fire, roads, etc). If I don't drive on your street, why should I have to pay for its upkeep? If you don't have kids in school, why should you pay for schools? Ad nauseam. A fully charity based society wouldn't last very long due to basic human nature being self-centered.

Why does everyone always want to start with police, fire, and roads? Why not start with Fourth of July parades instead?

I would suggest you look up the term "public good," it may help you discern the distinctions at work here.

Education has only been under the aegis of government for the past 150 years, due to the efforts of Horace Mann and big industrialists who wanted compliant, adequately- but not over-educated people to work in their factories, so I wouldn't call that a "basic service" in the same category as a road, any more than groceries are a "basic service."
User avatar
Michael Pelletier
 
Posts: 4219
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 12:43 pm
Location: 3 Woodbine Lane

Postby Andy Sylvia » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:53 pm

Michael Pelletier wrote: Why not start with Fourth of July parades instead?


That's an interesting thread right there.

Mike, I tend to agree with this anon. In a perfect world, i'd have no problem with a %100 charity based government, because people would innately realize that they cannot survive entirely without other human beings excluding extreme circumstances, and they'd pitch in of their own free will.

However, we don't live in a perfect world. Hopefully one day, no doubt generations upon generations from now, but not today.

If you'd like to try to help gradually steer society towards that goal, great, i'll join you: just remember one thing i've found with groups is that they never, ever move quickly enough towards something unless they give up their free will, which I think would defeat the purpose of bothering with that steering in the first place.
Andy Sylvia
 
Posts: 1869
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:34 pm

Postby RD » Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:57 pm

Michael Pelletier wrote:
Confucius wrote:I sincerely intended no offense with my comment, and that's a handsome young man you have there. Nothing beats playing in the snow as a kid and coming back in to a warm house and loving parents.

I wasn't particularly offended, as I found your comment to be an interesting insight into your mindset - that you mistake opposition to government funding and operation of worthwhile undertakings for opposition to the undertakings themselves.

It's not a particularly uncommon mistake, unfortunately.

I post with the caveat that I'm sure I speak for the rest of the town in congratulating you for bringing your beautiful son home, and wishing you all the best.

However, are there not substantial federal tax benefits geared toward the recovery of adoption costs? If so, and if you choose to accept them, aren't we, in part, paying for the adoption of your child?
RD
 
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 3:49 pm

Postby mmoy » Wed Apr 04, 2007 6:35 pm

There's a $10.6K credit for expenses. I guess whether or not that's substantial depends on the point of view. In the context of raising a child,
it's peanuts.
mmoy
 
Posts: 1348
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 3:49 pm

Postby RD » Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:15 pm

mmoy wrote:There's a $10.6K credit for expenses. I guess whether or not that's substantial depends on the point of view. In the context of raising a child,
it's peanuts.

True, but it is nonetheless an example of taxpayers being forced to subsidize someone else's expenses. In this case, I'm happy to subsidize this, as it is ultimately beneficial to our society.

But take a look at the death and destruction our tax dollars are subsidizing. I'd rather put that money into saving lives, as MP did, than ending them, as GW is doing. But, I digress.
RD
 
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 3:49 pm

Postby andysinnh » Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:41 am

So one of the "perks" of running for an office is you get all sorts of random emails that people pass your way. Today, someone shared with me the latest email that came out from Merrimack Cares (Jenn Tw specifically by herself). The topic was about a "voting guide" of what people should vote for, and one of the paragraphs in that letter had the following statement:

It is unfortunate
that over a million dollars was put back in the budget after the two boards delivered sound budgets. Their adjustments were calculated and were dismissed by a handful residents.


So, if the budgets were "sound" and delivered by the boards in place today, then why change the make-up of the boards? This shows that she can support what Emily Coburn and Rose Robertson-Smith (note the spelling correction here) did for the board, so I'm not sure why she'd want change there.... :shock:

She also talks about Honeywell and the "no bid" situation there, and what she didn't realize that other possibilities were considered, but Honeywell was the only one that could address the needs of the district without requiring the hiring of an additional headcount to do this (per previous SB meeting info). Hopefully she would have looked at this situation a bit closer.

andy
Andy Schneider
andysinnh
 
Posts: 2361
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:04 am
Location: Woodward Rd

Previous

Return to School Topics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron