Support NeoGAF

[dynamitejim]

Engage in a race to the bottom and then cry when another country wins while your town/county/state is left dying. It doesn't help when these places build cultural walls around themselves that offers nothing interesting to, if not actively repels, young professionals.

 

[Helznicht]

I really do not see any issue here. The town/city had a choice. Libraries needed more money to run, a majority of voters said no. City closes libraries, people keep their money, as the people desired. If the people feel they do not use those services, why should they pay for them?

I myself could not live that way, I like my city life, I like working for a French owned big company, I like my house, I like my cars and tech, I like giving my children modern comforts. But coming from a family in back woods Kentucky, I know there is not a damn thing wrong with living a simple life. I could have, but chose a different path. Those that stayed, its their life, they should lead it like they want.

My wifes father had a farm, she could have stayed and worked it with her cousin, but she chose not to and moved to Louisville (where we met), got a college education, job, moved with me to Kansas City. Her family had no money, she got a loan, worked, paid it off and is living the life she wanted.

So I pay taxes (~32%), I get services provided by the governments, I am ok with that. But damn if I still lived in backwoods KY, that would be ridiculous. A Library? Yeah a 45 minute drive to Louisville or Bowling Green. Fact is those services are not available because those that live there make very little money to tax in the first place, it not sustainable, and it does not need to be.

We often go back and visit, I always found it impressive how people get by. There are a lot of Amish that live in my wifes old stomping grounds. I love to see how the community gets together to build a house whenever there is wedding, how they all pitch in to build that new house (which I can say I have had the pleasure of helping with) or how they all pitch in on a barn raising. Speaking of which, when my father in law needed help making repairs on a barn, we went down to get wood at a lumber mill. It is run by the Amish, they gave him the wood needed due to the help we did on the wedding house. Similarly, he has a friend that is clearing a lot on his property for a new barn, we go and help, he kept grandma who lived on the farm in firewood to keep warm. Life in this community is a trade in services, not cash, and it works, its beautiful and the people there like it that way.

Again, not my choice, but I understand it. Its clear to me that many in this thread do not understand it and it comes off as ignorance or intolerance.

tl:dr nothin wrong with livin a simple life.

 

[KDR_11k]

If they like it this way...

The story says they still have some savings from when the timber industry was paying for everything, those will last about 2 years. So it'll be a bit before the situation reaches its new equilibrium.

 

[shawnbuddy]

I live in eastern Kentucky, in a town with a third the population of Roseburg.

We have a library. Actually, we have have two.

The idea that people in small towns don't use the library is wrong. The idea that this is some innocent rugged priority is naive. There are right wing politics at play here.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

That savings thing is annoying. It's helping to delude the citizens there that not paying into the system is quite alright.

Hope the state tells them to get fucked when that money runs out.

 

[numble]

On the subject specifically of sales taxes, they're about as regressive as taxes get so junking them isn't really a bad thing, though if they're failing to make up for it elsewhere I guess they're boned.

If you want to be technical, "progressive" means that the rate of tax increases as the taxable revenue increases, and "regressive" means that the rate of tax decreases as the taxable revenue increases. Based on such definitions, a sales tax is not regressive, it is a flat tax.

If you want to use some conservative/liberal lens to look at it, you are probably saying that a technically progressive income tax is "progressive" in that it taxes the rich more and taxes the poor less, and therefore you allege that a sales tax is "regressive" because a greater percentage of a poor person's income is presumably spent on sales taxes versus a rich person's. However, many countries have designed their sales tax systems to be quite beneficial for the lower income.

For example, in Canada, low income individuals get paid a HST/GST credit per quarter--I did a rough calculation and a low income family gets about $1000 per year. Many systems are designed to exempt certain necessities, such as groceries, education goods/services, medical goods/services, clothing, etc. from sales tax. Designed correctly, a sales tax system can basically become a luxury goods/service tax and can accomplish the following:
1) tax tourists and commuters that use local services but cannot be taxed with a local property or income tax
2) tax rich people on their consumption of luxury goods
3) serve as another mechanism to provide benefits for lower income individuals
4) as a consumption tax that is also imposed on businesses and taxed at the point of sale, it is difficult to avoid, unlike income taxes

Most of the developed countries throughout the world have implemented VAT-like systems to pay for social services and benefits such as health care, it is hard to say they have implemented more politically regressive tax systems compared to the US.

Therefore, I dispute the claim that a sales tax is regressive in either the technical or political sense.

 

[old]

It's like someone bragging about all the money they save not going to dentist or the doctor. Yep, more money in your wallet. But down the line your teeth fall out and you lose a foot to untreated diabetes. I can't fathom the mindset of not wanting to invest into your future, your society, and your culture just to save a few bucks now.

 

[Chumly]

I really do not see any issue here. The town/city had a choice. Libraries needed more money to run, a majority of voters said no. City closes libraries, people keep their money, as the people desired. If the people feel they do not use those services, why should they pay for them?

I myself could not live that way, I like my city life, I like working for a French owned big company, I like my house, I like my cars and tech, I like giving my children modern comforts. But coming from a family in back woods Kentucky, I know there is not a damn thing wrong with living a simple life. I could have, but chose a different path. Those that stayed, its their life, they should lead it like they want.

My wifes father had a farm, she could have stayed and worked it with her cousin, but she chose not to and moved to Louisville (where we met), got a college education, job, moved with me to Kansas City. Her family had no money, she got a loan, worked, paid it off and is living the life she wanted.

So I pay taxes (~32%), I get services provided by the governments, I am ok with that. But damn if I still lived in backwoods KY, that would be ridiculous. A Library? Yeah a 45 minute drive to Louisville or Bowling Green. Fact is those services are not available because those that live there make very little money to tax in the first place, it not sustainable, and it does not need to be.

We often go back and visit, I always found it impressive how people get by. There are a lot of Amish that live in my wifes old stomping grounds. I love to see how the community gets together to build a house whenever there is wedding, how they all pitch in to build that new house (which I can say I have had the pleasure of helping with) or how they all pitch in on a barn raising. Speaking of which, when my father in law needed help making repairs on a barn, we went down to get wood at a lumber mill. It is run by the Amish, they gave him the wood needed due to the help we did on the wedding house. Similarly, he has a friend that is clearing a lot on his property for a new barn, we go and help, he kept grandma who lived on the farm in firewood to keep warm. Life in this community is a trade in services, not cash, and it works, its beautiful and the people there like it that way.

Again, not my choice, but I understand it. Its clear to me that many in this thread do not understand it and it comes off as ignorance or intolerance.

tl:dr nothin wrong with livin a simple life.

This entire post complete ignores the taxes to go to things that people take for granted. They don't want a library? Sure whatever that is their choice. But what about electricity? Phone service? Cell phone service? Internet? Mail? All of those are heavily subsidized for rural areas.

Hell that doesn't even take into account the entire farm industry which your father in law is part of.


So yes it's fine and dandy to live a simple life but why the hell should I be paying taxes to make sure these people get basic necessities but it's ok for them to pay jack shit

 

[Helznicht]

This entire post complete ignores the taxes to go to things that people take for granted. They don't want a library? Sure whatever that is their choice. But what about electricity? Phone service? Cell phone service? Internet? Mail? All of those are heavily subsidized for rural areas.

Hell that doesn't even take into account the entire farm industry which your father in law is part of.


So yes it's fine and dandy to live a simple life but why the hell should I be paying taxes to make sure these people get basic necessities but it's ok for them to pay jack shit

One, I think you are confusing city vs state vs federal and the specific services they provide.

Two, never said they should get free anything. My cousin is a loafer and when he showed me what he called his "Obamaphone" it kinda frustrated me. The majority of the services you listed I would not call "basic necessities". Why do you assume "ALL RURAL" people take and benefit from these subsidies. There are some that need it, some that wouldn't even touch it, and some that abuse it.

 

[Chumly]

One, I think you are confusing city vs state vs federal and the specific services they provide.

Two, never said they should get free anything. My cousin is a loafer and when he showed me what he called his "Obamaphone" it kinda frustrated me. The majority of the services you listed I would not call "basic necessities". Why do you assume "ALL RURAL" people take and benefit from these subsidies. There are some that need it, some that wouldn't even touch it, and some that abuse it.

All my family lives in rural areas. The amount of people that don't use electricity or running on a generator is like none. Same with not using the mail service or phone. The subsidies literally pay for poles to go up and running service to people's houses. Cell phone towers? We pay Verizon etc to put them up.

I'm not even talking about the obamaphone program.

You are right that I was referencing more state and federal funding. City services they can do whatever they want.

 

[Helznicht]

All my family lives in rural areas. The amount of people that don't use electricity or running on a generator is like none. Same with not using the mail service or phone. The subsidies literally pay for poles to go up and running service to people's houses. Cell phone towers? We pay Verizon etc to put them up.

I'm not even talking about the obamaphone program.

You are right that I was referencing more state and federal funding. City services they can do whatever they want.

Was not aware of the FCC's "Connect America" program. Thanks.
https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2015/08/28/milestone-expanding-broadband-rural-america

Sounds like a good program to cut to me.

 

[S-Wind]

That is incredibly sad for a country that was founded on a (mostly) great constitution citing the ideals of liberty and democracy.

The country was founded on the ideals of liberty and democracy for land-owning White men, so i'd say things are continuing to go as originally planned.

 

[CornBurrito]

No sales tax is a good idea though. The poor overwhelmingly suffer from a sales tax. The rich do not.

 

[CornBurrito]

One, I think you are confusing city vs state vs federal and the specific services they provide.

Two, never said they should get free anything. My cousin is a loafer and when he showed me what he called his "Obamaphone" it kinda frustrated me. The majority of the services you listed I would not call "basic necessities". Why do you assume "ALL RURAL" people take and benefit from these subsidies. There are some that need it, some that wouldn't even touch it, and some that abuse it.

How is a phone not a basic necessity? When's the last time you even looked for a job?

Lol @ electricity not being a basic necessity in modern society. OK bro.

 

[Zips]

People dream of not having to contribute anything while still being able to access whatever they need. That's where you get people not wanting to pay taxes but still making use of road systems, the internet, phone networks, mail systems, subsidized food and other products, etc..

Give people the ability to pick and choose what they feel like paying, and you end up with people pulling out of whatever they feel they don't need at that specific moment, without really comprehending the full potential impact, and hurting others if not themselves as well.

I know where I live post-secondary schools stopped giving itemized tuition statements because people would try to refuse paying for things like bookstores, libraries, gyms, tutoring services, and other items that have a marginal cost due to everyone chipping in.

 

[CyclopsRock]

If you want to be technical, "progressive" means that the rate of tax increases as the taxable revenue increases, and "regressive" means that the rate of tax decreases as the taxable revenue increases. Based on such definitions, a sales tax is not regressive, it is a flat tax.

I don't think there is a "technical" definition of those terms - analysts and researchers don't all use them in the same way, but in my experience by far the most common use of the term comes from it's impact as a percentage of income, by which metric VAT is generally regarded as regressive. The problem is that with a perfect implementation you would be correct and it would be a luxury tax, but I'm not aware of anywhere that has such a thing. In the UK stuff like food and medicine has a 0% rate and energy has a lowered rate, but things like petrol - which is occasionally discretionary but not usually - doesn't. In fact, it has an incredibly high rate of sales tax. Likewise with cigarettes and alcohol (whose cost are made up hugely of their sales tax), both of which are consumed in far larger quantities as a proportion of income by those on low incomes compared to those on middle and higher incomes. Finally, if you throw into the mix that a lot of people with low income do, nonetheless, not necessarily have low spending patterns (as seen by the large increase in unsecured debt since 2008) and I think it's hard to argue that in practice sales taxes are progressive even if they theoretically could be.

 

[andythinkpad]

I have always wanted to live in a Libertarian Dystopia.

 

[FyreWulff]

Of course these "no more services" "everyone is their own king" always want to start off at the current status quo than have everyone start off on equal footing and capitalism their way up

While most of the article is bleak, it does point out some positives:



Overall, I definitely think these people are just impoverishing themselves and their descendants over peanuts, but hopefully the good people in government keep fighting and taking care of these dumbasses. Because that's what they're supposed to do.

In that case they more or less re-discovered the fact that actually integrating offenders into society lowers re-offending instead of throwing them in a hole and letting them fight each other for years (literally)

 

[Future]

If the people don't want those services then shut them down. What's the problem?

 

[Jordan117]

Reminds me of one of my favorite MetaFilter comments:

I used to love playing SimCity 2000. It was the last good SimCity game before Maxis decided that I also wanted to control the timing of stoplights, slope of sidewalk ramps, what species of grass a park had, etc.

One of the things I used to enjoy doing was using a cheat to get an absurd amount of money, lowering taxes to zero, and then pausing the game. I would then build a paradise on Earth, a wonderful utopia for my citizens. The second I unpaused the game, BAM! the place would fill up immediately and everyone would be deliriously happy.

But then their god turned on them. I would let disasters pummel them and fail to fix the consequences. Eventually there would be huge swaths of the city with no electricity or water. Paved roads were a fond memory to the inhabitants. Fires and monsters would rage through the place unchecked for decades. Naturally, this would result in most everyone beating feet out of my city, but there was always a small percentage who stayed. Nothing seemed to make them budge.

Until I raised taxes from 0% to 1%. At that point, they’d had enough and would scram. The fires, potholes, darkness, crime, and monsters weren’t a problem but 1% taxes were an abomination up with which they would simply not put.

What SimCity 2000 was simulating there was Republicans.

 

[FyreWulff]

If the people don't want those services then shut them down. What's the problem?

nobody wants to pay for services until they need them,, which actually makes them more expensive

 

[Zips]

If the people don't want those services then shut them down. What's the problem?

People are dumb and don't know what's good for them.

 

[nded]

Possibly... But you might be getting it mixed up with a sketch about a gas/petrol station being run by skeezy real estate salesmen.

Nah, it's a real Fry and Laurie sketch.

 

[numble]

I don't think there is a "technical" definition of those terms - analysts and researchers don't all use them in the same way, but in my experience by far the most common use of the term comes from it's impact as a percentage of income, by which metric VAT is generally regarded as regressive. The problem is that with a perfect implementation you would be correct and it would be a luxury tax, but I'm not aware of anywhere that has such a thing. In the UK stuff like food and medicine has a 0% rate and energy has a lowered rate, but things like petrol - which is occasionally discretionary but not usually - doesn't. In fact, it has an incredibly high rate of sales tax. Likewise with cigarettes and alcohol (whose cost are made up hugely of their sales tax), both of which are consumed in far larger quantities as a proportion of income by those on low incomes compared to those on middle and higher incomes. Finally, if you throw into the mix that a lot of people with low income do, nonetheless, not necessarily have low spending patterns (as seen by the large increase in unsecured debt since 2008) and I think it's hard to argue that in practice sales taxes are progressive even if they theoretically could be.

Look up "regressive tax" on Wikipedia:

A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.

If you want to use the political version of regressive, you need to look at where the revenue is going instead of looking at it as a standalone item. In Canada for instance, it provides for wealth redistribution and health care benefits. In almost all countries with single payer healthcare, VAT/GST is one of the largest sources of tax revenue as well, providing funding for social services that predominantly go to those with lower income. I don't see why cigarettes and alcohol are not considered discretionary. Many states in the US use such taxes to fund health care and anti-tobacco programs (example). Gas taxes are also tied to government transportation expenditures (example), which tries to impose a fee based on your use of transportation infrastructure, which should be fair. Finally, we need to recognize that with a VAT/GST system, compared to a sales tax system that is only paid by consumers on goods, the tax base includes business-to-business sales (sales tax does not tax such activity) and taxes services, which are usually enjoyed by those in higher income brackets (sales tax does not tax such activity), which is certainly more progressive than simply a sales tax on consumer goods.

It is very easy to argue against the idea that "junking them isn't really a bad thing", when it is much easier to fix any issues than to throw the baby out with the bathwater, especially given the many benefits they can offer.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

Reminds me of an old post from Something Awful

I'm going to put this on my Facebook wall.

 

[CornBurrito]

I'm going to put this on my Facebook wall.

It's a dumb post. Socialism isn't "The Government Doing Things", and the Government doing more Things does not make a nation more Socialist.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

It's a dumb post. Socialism isn't "The Government Doing Things", and the Government doing more Things does not make a nation more Socialist.

Nah, my Alabamian friends think exactly like this. They believe the government literally does nothing for them. I had a friend say because he has a job he doesn't rely on the government for anything. Seriously.


"Same. I don't have to rely on the government for shit"

Said unironically.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Libertarianism will be the end of civilization.

 

[shawnbuddy]

What it really sounds like is these people got used to the stuff being subsidized by the timber industry until it all felt free. When actually asked to foot the bill they couldn't do it, those services had always been freebies so they never valued them. I worry that is eventually going to happen in coal country too.

 

[Ogodei]

While most of the article is bleak, it does point out some positives:



Overall, I definitely think these people are just impoverishing themselves and their descendants over peanuts, but hopefully the good people in government keep fighting and taking care of these dumbasses. Because that's what they're supposed to do.

There are a lot of unsung heroes working in local government.

 

[hodayathink]

Oregon is a very polarized state despite how it appears to be so blue. Rural Oregon is not much different than deep red south of the United States. Huge crosses, and all white towns everywhere. You just have Portland metro area, Salem, Medford, and Eugene having the bulk of Oregon's population that always tip the balance towards the left.

That's every state, though. California outside of the major cities can be red as hell, as a simple example. The question is generally if your major cities are big enough to drown out the rest of the state. Los Angeles/San Francisco? Yes. New York City? Yes. Detroit/Milwaulkee? Maybe, maybe not. Same with Philadelphia/Pittsburgh. Dallas/Houston/San Antonio? Not really. And the list goes on.

 

[FStubbs]

Oregon is a very polarized state despite how it appears to be so blue. Rural Oregon is not much different than deep red south of the United States. Huge crosses, and all white towns everywhere. You just have Portland metro area, Salem, Medford, and Eugene having the bulk of Oregon's population that always tip the balance towards the left.

Once you leave the cities and suburbs, you're in racist, bigoted America. In any state.

Note: However, look closely at those Southern maps, especially the Carolinas. You'll see why conservatives are so hot and heavy on Voter suppression and have been since 1865.

 

[Syriel]

I really do not see any issue here. The town/city had a choice. Libraries needed more money to run, a majority of voters said no. City closes libraries, people keep their money, as the people desired. If the people feel they do not use those services, why should they pay for them?

I myself could not live that way, I like my city life, I like working for a French owned big company, I like my house, I like my cars and tech, I like giving my children modern comforts. But coming from a family in back woods Kentucky, I know there is not a damn thing wrong with living a simple life. I could have, but chose a different path. Those that stayed, its their life, they should lead it like they want.

Because basic services are part of the social contract of America.

Basic services like education, fire, and police protection were there for them when they were young. They took advantage of said services.

If they want to live the simple life, more power to them, but to essentially say "Fuck You, Got MINES!" to the next generation is pretty cold.

 

[Snowybreak]

Nah, it's a real Fry and Laurie sketch.

Well shit. Whatever, any reason to delve back into that show is a good reason.

 

[RoninChaos]

You'd think the desire to maintain property value would outweigh not wanting to pay taxes. I mean, good luck ever selling a house in a town with no schools or emergency services.

I was thinking the same thing. Who in their right mind would move there? And how would you maintain property values when there isn't anything there but people who don't want to pay taxes?

 

[R10Neymarfan]

Once you leave the cities and suburbs, you're in racist, bigoted America. In any state.

Note: However, look closely at those Southern maps, especially the Carolinas. You'll see why conservatives are so hot and heavy on Voter suppression and have been since 1865.

Holy shit this map is definitely more than %50 of america. guess we're lucky some hick didn't vome out and vote because damn by looking at this map that electoral college win should have been over 50%

Also cities are blue because urban areas are also the highest densities of minorities. Go figure..

 

[hodayathink]

Holy shit this map is definitely more than %50 of america. guess we're lucky some hick didn't vome out and vote because damn by looking at this map that electoral college win should have been over 50%

Also cities are blue because urban areas are also the highest densities of minorities. Go figure..

Nah, Republicans aren't in THAT great of a position electorally since states are still determined by popular vote, and many blue states have cities and liberal enclaves (like college towns) large enough to drown out the Rural vote (for example, Chicago/Champaign-Urbana/East. St Louis and Illinois, Denver and the college towns and Colorado). What happened this election is that the states with declining cities (Detroit and Michigan, Milwaukee and Wisconsin) turned red before the southern states experiencing demographic shifts turned blue (Arizona, Georgia I think, and eventually Texas). Where this does hurt, though, is in controlling state legislatures.

 

[Syriel]

Holy shit this map is definitely more than %50 of america. guess we're lucky some hick didn't vome out and vote because damn by looking at this map that electoral college win should have been over 50%

Also cities are blue because urban areas are also the highest densities of minorities. Go figure..

GOP has always had a lead by land mass. Not by population though.

Cities like SF and LA can have such an outsize effect on CA's electoral votes because so many people live there. Just because individuals have a lot less land (by area) doesn't mean their votes are worth any less than someone who owns five acres.

 

[NorthAndSouth]

This is almost a textbook can't see the forest for the trees scenario.

I get that people want to spend their money as they see fit, but surely we all have a duty to help out for shared public services? The public benefits from tax funded instituons and policies, and it gives the public a voice in advocating for what they want. Then again, I'm shocked that the US still doesn't see healthcare, let alone having a town library, as a a shared responsibility either so there isn't much to add...

 

[Belfast]

I really do not see any issue here. The town/city had a choice. Libraries needed more money to run, a majority of voters said no. City closes libraries, people keep their money, as the people desired. If the people feel they do not use those services, why should they pay for them?

I myself could not live that way, I like my city life, I like working for a French owned big company, I like my house, I like my cars and tech, I like giving my children modern comforts. But coming from a family in back woods Kentucky, I know there is not a damn thing wrong with living a simple life. I could have, but chose a different path. Those that stayed, its their life, they should lead it like they want.

My wifes father had a farm, she could have stayed and worked it with her cousin, but she chose not to and moved to Louisville (where we met), got a college education, job, moved with me to Kansas City. Her family had no money, she got a loan, worked, paid it off and is living the life she wanted.

So I pay taxes (~32%), I get services provided by the governments, I am ok with that. But damn if I still lived in backwoods KY, that would be ridiculous. A Library? Yeah a 45 minute drive to Louisville or Bowling Green. Fact is those services are not available because those that live there make very little money to tax in the first place, it not sustainable, and it does not need to be.

We often go back and visit, I always found it impressive how people get by. There are a lot of Amish that live in my wifes old stomping grounds. I love to see how the community gets together to build a house whenever there is wedding, how they all pitch in to build that new house (which I can say I have had the pleasure of helping with) or how they all pitch in on a barn raising. Speaking of which, when my father in law needed help making repairs on a barn, we went down to get wood at a lumber mill. It is run by the Amish, they gave him the wood needed due to the help we did on the wedding house. Similarly, he has a friend that is clearing a lot on his property for a new barn, we go and help, he kept grandma who lived on the farm in firewood to keep warm. Life in this community is a trade in services, not cash, and it works, its beautiful and the people there like it that way.

Again, not my choice, but I understand it. Its clear to me that many in this thread do not understand it and it comes off as ignorance or intolerance.

tl:dr nothin wrong with livin a simple life.

The problem is that these people don't live in a vacuum. If they really want to fuck themselves on the local level, that's fine. But they also vote in state/federal elections and for measures that impact the rest of us.

As pointed out in the article, one dude was still against taxes, but saw that there's a difference between unbridled conservatism and community. He voted for the Library tax because he saw the value in keeping community services running. Most of them don't. They hiss and moan the second the word "tax" is mentioned, no matter what it might be going to. So, they didn't collectively decide they didn't need a library. They collectively decided they didn't want another tax.

Going back to my first point, if these chucklefucks can't pay for their own services, guess who does (if it gets paid for it at all?). The state government and the federal government. My taxes, your taxes. We've agreed to pay into this system already, but we have idiots like those in Douglas and Curry county and other rural places who refuse to do the same and then (surprise, surprise) get handouts and subsidies from the rest of us, and then blame us for whatever predicament they've gotten themselves into in the first place.

These towns aren't used to diversification, either in people or industry, and nobody is willing to look farther than the tip of their own nose to anticipate future problems. Certain industries are dying, certain places are dying because they rely on those industries. The march of time and technology and progress dictates that certain things become unsustainable over time when newer, better things replace them.

Without going on too much of a tangent here, there is something wrong with living a simple life, *if* the ability to do so depends on the rest of society to keep you in your comfortable, little bubble. And, oddly enough, the conservative, capitalistic, fiscally responsible mindset should support that notion. These places are outmoded. These industries are outmoded. If they are no longer producing viable products or people, then they should stand to fail. It is a money sink to keep these communities alive.

Now, I don't fully believe that, myself. I don't feel comfortable saying we should just condemn these citizens to death and destitution... but when its at their own hands? They need to be willing to change and meet the rest of us *at least* halfway.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

If someone can point to any given civilization that has somehow became great because they had no taxes, maybe they might start making a point.

I hate paying them too but we, uh, kinda need taxes.

Its insane that "fuck you got mine" can lead to not even wanting basic public needs. I doubt that'll end well lol

i will never understand americas obsession with not paying any tax. my top tax rate is 52% i dont give a fuck, because so is everyone elses that earns enough to have to pay it.

it has the added benefit of everything being great and there is a distinct lack of stabby or shooty events

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

You don't pay for a library because you use it (although you can and should!), you pay for a library so kids and poor people can use and benefit from it. They democratize access to quality (read: better than online) information and the finer aspects of culture and our heritage. Thanks to interlibrary sharing, libraries don't have to be big, but your town should definitely be expected to have SOME kind of library.

 

[xenist]

i will never understand americas obsession with not paying any tax. my top tax rate is 52% i dont give a fuck, because so is everyone elses that earns enough to have to pay it.

it has the added benefit of everything being great and there is a distinct lack of stabby or shooty events

But you don't understand, man. The government's boot on your throat, man. Taxes are extortion, man.

It's like people are losing their basic logical faculties when the possibility of having more money is involved.

 

[Future]

You don't pay for a library because you use it (although you can and should!), you pay for a library so kids and poor people can use and benefit from it. They democratize access to quality (read: better than online) information and the finer aspects of culture and our heritage. Thanks to interlibrary sharing, libraries don't have to be big, but your town should definitely be expected to have SOME kind of library.

What if the town doesn't want the library though. Including parents of kids in that town

 

[adamsappel]

You don't pay for a library because you use it (although you can and should!), you pay for a library so kids and poor people can use and benefit from it. They democratize access to quality (read: better than online) information and the finer aspects of culture and our heritage. Thanks to interlibrary sharing, libraries don't have to be big, but your town should definitely be expected to have SOME kind of library.

It's the old "I don't have kids, but I like paying for schools so I'm not surrounded by idiots."

What if the town doesn't want the library though. Including parents of kids in that town

I never understand why people wouldn't want their kids to get smart. I'm originally from West Virginia and a fair number of my friends were the first people in their families to go to college, and that was a good thing. A library is also a great way to not have to buy books, although that relates back to the keeping kids dumb issue.

 

[nel e nel]

Holy shit this map is definitely more than %50 of america. guess we're lucky some hick didn't vome out and vote because damn by looking at this map that electoral college win should have been over 50%

Also cities are blue because urban areas are also the highest densities of minorities. Go figure..

50% of the geography does not mean 50% of the population. The density in those blue areas balance things out more than this map suggests.

 

[digdug2k]

GOP has always had a lead by land mass. Not by population though.

Cities like SF and LA can have such an outsize effect on CA's electoral votes because so many people live there. Just because individuals have a lot less land (by area) doesn't mean their votes are worth any less than someone who owns five acres.

Well, to be fair, because of the electoral college their votes ARE worth less. You know, because otherwise someone can win by just campaigning in big cities for urban votes, instead of what we have right now, where someone can win just with rural voters. That's what makes it fair. Problem solved.

 

[digdug2k]

To show how fucked them Dems are though, even when it has zero chance of even being voted on ever, the right is still putting out "the left wants to tax you to death" propaganda.

 

[SaviourMK2]

I support taxes (even if they are a little high) because I don't approve of social suicide.

Let;s be real, people who want no taxes would be better off biting a bullet because without taxes there are no police coming to help you, no firefighters, no ambulances, the roads will be a hazard, no one to remove snow.

 

[BajiBoxer]

I support taxes (even if they are a little high) because I don't approve of social suicide.

Let;s be real, people who want no taxes would be better off biting a bullet because without taxes there are no police coming to help you, no firefighters, no ambulances, the roads will be a hazard, no one to remove snow.

This is the problem right here. I know it's an innocent comment, but we have some of the lowest taxes in the world compared to other economically developed countries. Especially if you throw in non-income taxes like sales tax, for example. The anti-tax propagana has been so strong over the years that I'd say most people who aren't leaning socialist think our taxes are high.