Andy9o8 2 #51 March 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI wish the rich and the corporations and the employers had to pay for the military instead of me paying for it - that would be great...... How about this? You pay for what you want and so does everybody else. Exception: commons like roads, fire, police, etc. Why is it that you want others to pay? I never go to Fresno. I don't even live in the same state, so its roads are not common to me. I don't want federal funds, to which I contribute by paying federal taxes, some of which go to California, used to repair that pothole in front of your house. Me either. I'd prefer that we all pay for our own roads, on a local, or better yet, a fee for use basis. I already have your mug shot posted at the toll booth at the end of my street. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #52 March 30, 2009 People tend to view funding things like the military (or police, or fire, etc) as "impossible" without mandatory government collections. I disagree, generally, but on a more specific real world level, I think that such things ought to be kept to the absolute minimum level, and further, ought to have costs recovered by user fees whenever possible. Remember that the actual cost of defending the territorial integrity of the nation is going to be a whole lot less than the current defense budget, since there is lots of "defense" spending that is really better viewed as foreign adventurism. For those purposes, if you wanted to allow such things (which I don't) you could allow a collection (if you support the invasion of country X, pony up some cash for the invasion fund). There are lots of possible alternatives there. Here are a couple options, off the top of my head (not that I'd espouse all of them): 1) Charge a user fee for things protected by the military. Fund your military out of the fees. If people don't use the things, then military funding falls. 2) Create a mandatory one-time fee for living in the "protected area" (in this case the US). You can ante up the cash when you reach your legal majority, or when you decide to move into the protected area. If people don't have the cash, you could offer them the alternative of providing their time (in other words, enlisting in the military) to pay their fee.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #53 March 30, 2009 QuoteI already have your mug shot posted at the toll booth at the end of my street. Cool. If I ever drive down your street, I'd be happy to pay the toll--so long as I don't have to double pay by paying taxes to maintain the road as well. Whenever I have the option, I take toll roads--they're invariably better maintained, have less traffic, and get me places faster than the alternate public roads.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #54 March 30, 2009 Quote Whenever I have the option, I take toll roads--they're invariably better maintained, have less traffic, and get me places faster than the alternate public roads. Doesn't seem to apply to bridges however. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #55 March 30, 2009 QuoteQuote Whenever I have the option, I take toll roads--they're invariably better maintained, have less traffic, and get me places faster than the alternate public roads. Doesn't seem to apply to bridges however. Most toll bridges that I've driven on are state owned and maintained. Most toll roads that I've driven on are privately owned and maintained (generally by for-profit entities). I'd be curious to see what a private, for-profit toll bridge would end up looking like. I don't believe I've ever been on one.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #56 March 30, 2009 true enough. But a key advantage for toll roads, at least in CA, is they're all quite new. And due to our climate, it's some time before substantial maintenance is required. Unfortunately, the capital costs of building a bridge in earthquake land is pretty steep, probably not viable for a private concern that doesn't have a really long term outlook, and even then, financing it would probably be a killer. So we're stuck with state run bridges, who use tolls to fund buses, ferries, and promised improvements that get tabled when the general fund is in trouble. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krip 2 #57 March 30, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Whenever I have the option, I take toll roads--they're invariably better maintained, have less traffic, and get me places faster than the alternate public roads. Doesn't seem to apply to bridges however. Most toll bridges that I've driven on are state owned and maintained. Most toll roads that I've driven on are privately owned and maintained (generally by for-profit entities). I'd be curious to see what a private, for-profit toll bridge would end up looking like. I don't believe I've ever been on one. WE almost got one in Wa state. The new tacoma narrows bridge. After the dust settled the State decided to use their own bonds to pay for the bridge and collect tolls to retire the bonds. The bbridge design/construction would have been the same either way, with the contractor option hw would have had more input on the tolls charged and duration. FWIW the state decided to contract out the toll collection duties, due to under estimating the amount of bridge users that would use auto pay the toll collection company got a very good deal. Wa State will be replacing some other bridges so contractor financed projects are still on the table. The contractor like to help us out constructing our infra struture and reduce our bonding debt. Win Win for them Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 362 #58 March 31, 2009 Quote...there is lots of "defense" spending that is really better viewed as foreign adventurism.This I agree with. However, even if the defense budget were scaled back to be in line with what Canada or European countries that don't engage in such adventurism spend per capita, the cost would not be trivial. Quote Create a mandatory one-time fee for living in the "protected area" (in this case the US). You can ante up the cash when you reach your legal majority, or when you decide to move into the protected area. If people don't have the cash, you could offer them the alternative of providing their time (in other words, enlisting in the military) to pay their fee. How would that fee be any different from a "tax", except that you would have to pay your lifetime tax all in one shot. Since no-one except children of the very wealthy would be likely to $50,000 plus (admittedly a WAG, but not an improbable figure) on hand the day they turn 18, wouldn't that amount to involuntary conscription of everyone except a few who had the good luck to be born into wealthy families? How is forced servitude, with the only alternative leaving the "protected area" (the entire US, so effectively being stripped of your citizenship) not a much worse intrusion on your freedom than paying your "fee" off a bit each year (i.e. an annual tax)? Similarly, it seems unworkable to me to have the judicial system only be available to those individuals who choose to pay a user fee. So if a crime is committed against you, the police will not investigate, and prosecutors will not prosecute the offender, unless you paid up in advance? Or if you "opt out" of the system, would that entitle you to act as judge, jury, and executioner yourself if you believe you have been wronged? If someone decides not to pay a user fee for access to the sewer system/treatment plant, would the city pour cement down their toilets to block access? If then that person decides that instead they'll just use the river as a latrine, doesn't that put everyone else who uses that water at greatly increased risk of disease? I get the argument about toll roads, although having to stop every couple of miles to pay a toll seems hugely inefficient to me compared to paying that toll when I buy gas, through gas taxes. The cost could well be about the same, without the need to stop and wait through a line of gas-wasting idling cars at a toll booth every 5 minutes (as I experienced not long ago trying to take the loop around Houston). I do get the principle of freedom to choose you are advocating, and I can imagine some circumstances where that could work, but I guess I also lack the imagination to see how it could possibly work in the real world in many other cases. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #59 March 31, 2009 >Since no-one except children of the very wealthy would be likely to >$50,000 plus (admittedly a WAG, but not an improbable figure) . . . Let's see - Assume an average lifespan of 72 years, and assume you pay for 'protection' that whole time. Military spending is currently about $613 billion a year; assume you can cut that in half. Assume about 300 million people. That would put you at a $74,000 lifetime amount. (Military only, assuming massive cuts.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #60 March 31, 2009 Thank you for pointing out this $74k fogure, bill. And since military spending isn't even the largest budgetary item, we can really see the truly MASSIVE numbers we are talking about. As much as I agree with Tom I do not see his system as entirely workable. Instead, a POTUS willing to commit political suicide and a similar Congress is necessary. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
