Grover Norquist accidentally provides perfect argument for taxation

Lol

Long story short, Norquist tried explaining how Republicans are born by using the example of his daughter having saved £35 to buy a £35 dollar guitar, and not realising she had to figure in sales tax.

Twitter pointed out what that sales tax actually pays for, and that perhaps he should be a better Dad (I'd focus on him being a better human being first, but hey-ho) if he explained that to her and then used some of the fucking wealth he makes spewing this shit to other "fuck you, it's my money but I still want the roads/public services/healthcare/etc because I'm a selfish cunt" selfish cunts to pay the measly sales tax for her.

I'm sorry has anyone here said that we should have no taxes at all? I personally favor only sales tax and not income taxes.

I can think of a few reasons for income tax right off the bat. People with higher income have often benefitted more from education and federal banking/business laws.

Higher paid people are also unlikely to spend an equivalent percentage of their earnings on stuff as average joes. Bill Gates doesn't buy a new Ferrari every year, and his groceries cost the same as anyone else's.

Worst. Muppet. Ever.

That's nice and all, now answer my question. Who here has advocated for zero taxes? John Castle is no longer a poster here.

I'm not answering your question because it's a diversion as I never claimed anyone here had.

Now I'm sure in your head you had an argument when you posted that but, like the other contents of your head, you had zilch.

Your thread title suggests otherwise.

No, because then I would have titled it "Grover Norquist accidentally provides perfect argument to cockslap FF and all his anti-taxation buddies in the face".

Believe it or not, the world doesn't revolve around you - although, come to think of it, that seems to be the main reason people oppose taxation.

I was making a general point about Grover's stupidity. Still, as you proved in this very thread, one can find an argument for income tax too. So really, you've already conceded taxation is necessary, you just draw the line at a different point.

Oddly enough, that's the same point I made about the 2nd Amendment and right to own artillery or WMD.

I've never said that taxes aren't necessary.

Yes, I believe we've acknowledged that. And yet, you seem to have taken this thread quite personally, despite me not including you in the title and my only post here referring to you as anti-taxation coming after you admitted you disagree with some forms of taxation, and even that post was pointing out that I didn't call you anti-taxation.

It's almost like you need to believe I'm attacking you in order to validate your own existence.

And that's not healthy.

I mean, seriously, I drink way too much to expect to live more than another 10-15 years.

That's IF you could keep my attention that long.

And I didn't even start this thread thinking "this'll fuck FF right off".

Grover Norquist also believes taxation to be necessary, so your thread title is dumb.

Norquist's pledge bans ANY increase in taxation, so he's either ignorant of expanding needs and inflation if he thinks the current taxation level is enough, or he wants taxes reduced.

I could consider 10 cents "necessary" to paying for a $20 blowjob, but if I'm not prepared to stump up the rest, neither me or the whore are doing business. Even if blowjobs used to be $5 when I was 18.

I believe he wants taxes reduced. I don't keep up with the guy, so that's about all I can say.

Ayup.

You must know some awfully cheap guys....

His simplistic pledge seems to suggest otherwise.

Depends. If he also wants to audit the hell of of things to see what savings could be made, that would be no bad thing.

The problem with not questioning an ever voracious state is neatly encapsulated by The Blair Years - tossing ever greater amounts amount of money at problems with ever decreasing returns because, shockingly enough, improving things requires a bit more thought than more/less money.

In the UK I've seen departments of the public sector starved of cash, what I've never seen is them actually short when it comes to paying for junkets, pet projects, vanity projects or expensive lawyers to silence whistleblowers.

I'm happy to pay more tax to provide services, just as soon as we get some proper transparency and oversight. A nice big spotlight on the public sector, so the PFI leeches, the screwy outsourcing deals, the unionised tentacles and shitty, shoddy managerial practises are all there to see. I'd enjoy watching them scuttling around, trying to evade the light.

And you know what, I rather think the taxpayer would be pleasantly surprised at what they could get with the taxes that are already being paid, and I think a lot of staff at the shitty end of the stick would be pleasantly surprised at what they could get paid too.

Hey D.

That's some good shit right there, particularly in the bold. Some of the UK particulars could be changed slightly for regional/national variation, and would apply equally accurately to the US too. The added layers of bureaucracy and added opportunities for waste, theft and corruption are the reason I instinctively react negatively to new government, new regs, and new taxes and programs and government fixits. [well, that plus the long-term negative impact of power grabs that are self-perpetuating, ever growing, and almost never 'sunset.'

Cyril Parkinson made notes about bureaucracy during his time in the UK civil service, and many a world leader has come to agree with him. His notes were, much like what most British humorists produce, truths sugared.

He spotted that officials tended to generate work for each other without regard to value of said work, and that managers would expand their workforce in an effort to empire-build and one get over on perceived rivals.

Now if government services are for the betterment of the nation and its people shouldn't you expect more co-operative behaviour? Or at the very least promote it by punishing in-work rivalry?

I find a lot on the left are fans of Douglas Adams work, yet never seem to cotton on they're the ones defending the Vogons.

Them's good points, but unfortunately Norquist ain't putting forward suggestions for cutting government waste - he's leaving that to the ideologues in the GOP, who favour the free market.

I certainly won't argue that there isn't government waste. In the UK, for example, you are quite correct that the government routinely subsides private entities it hires to fulfil contracts (Fujitsu for computing, G4S for security) when they suddenly go over-budget. And I suspect the same goes on in the US, or at least increased access to that market is what the GOP actually want.

I'd prioritize certain uses of tax money over others (healthcare over Trident, for example). But we have to ensure that there's value for money without compromising quality. Was it private contractors who fitted that cladding to Grenwell and bidded low to get the contract? Or a local council out to save cash? Or both? I don't want taxpayers bailing out companies for incompetence but I would also rather they were honest about the costs upfront instead of lowest bidder wins.

Why? According to "Warships: International Fleet Review" the Dreadnought class missile subs which will replace the Vanguard class missile boats currently in service for the U.K. will carry only 8 Trident II D-5s as opposed to the 16 aboard the Vanguards.

Once again you prove that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Companies and corporations would pay no taxes if income tax was eliminated.

I'm sure you'll be happy to explain why, since you're not talking out of your ass or anything.


For the record, here's the pledge:

Wait, are corporations people or not?

So obviously the joke doesn't work, but it's quite a stretch to say that it provides an argument for taxation.

Their poetry's unrivaled

I have a, albeit very small, amount of sympathy for the outsourced overruns. Trying to get requirements out of the public sector is one of the more painful things I have to do. Nobody wants to agree to anything, nobody wants to sign anything, so you end up getting earache that you're behind when they've not even provided the basic criteria. I once developed a system according to a supplied criteria I managed to tease out of a manager, and it was useless to the end users. It was a waste of my time (if not my bank account), NHS funds and the time of some front-line nurses. It's not the most pleasant feeling, having to smile at a room full of union-protected jobsworth shirts and ties when I want to punch them in the face screaming "lives could be saved? Hellooo? Fuckwit?"

Now my sympathy is small because I've also dealt with Crapita, MS and KPMG directly, and they tend to just add on an extra layer of incompetence, so fixing the plethora of fuck ups that riddle the UK public sector may be the start, but is certainly not the end.

There seems to be some confusion over if the cladding was legal at the time of installation. Hammond has declared it wasn't, yet there are several different regulations covering the cladding, so I suspect a court case will decide the legality.

We do know that the suppliers were asked to provide the cheaper panels, we don't if they were requested or if one of the subcontractors cut corners (corporate manslaughter charges if so) and, if requested, at what level they were requested.

It is pulling up councils of how they regulate their towers though - in Camden it was missing fire doors galore.

I suspect a lot of questions will be raised, and ties into my own view that the heavy/light regulation is false argument - we had three sets (at least!) of regulations in this instance, with conflicts between them and no agreed on primacy of one set. So we actually too much regulation and too little at the same time.