How is with taxes? I was looking at some land, 40 acres of woods

File: ancapsmiley.jpg (72KB, 800x576px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 800x576px

>>34975942
buy an abandoned oil rig in international waters so you can smoke weed and shoot machine guns off into the empty, blue horizon

>>34975942
Gotta send future chads and stacies thru highschool somehow

>>34976060
yeah fuckin brat kids send em to government school so you don't have to fuckin deal with em

Just buy a rifle and some equipment and go live in National Forests BLM land and shoot and shoot any hikers or campers or rangers that see you.

>>34975942

I assume you are pissed about the concept of property tax. Well its a thing for two reasons. One it pays for roads, schools and such for the county and secondly it incentivizes the idea to upgrade the land rather then letting it lay bare.

>>34976183
and if I just want to be left alone? I'll be murdered.

>>34976183
you know you will pay even MORE to gov if you do upgrades

>>34975942
do you have source on that pic

mgtows like to warn that women MIGHT take 50% of your stuff, but Daddy Gov guaranteed will

>>34976215

Uh what? I don't understand what you mean here.

>>34976243

No shit but the government doesn't really care.

>>34976359
I don't pay, I get murdered. simple. (I have guns and I'm sure as fuck not going down with my hands on my head)

They don't care about what they are incentivizing for or about the extra money they will shake me down for?

>>34976395

They won't murder you for not paying taxes, they will place a lein on the property and take it from you.

They government would love if you increase the value of the land cause they could charge you more in taxes for it but regardless they are going to collect money from the land either way.

>>34976256

100% tax free, the censored version is on YouTube, I think with the uncensored link

>>34976445
it's mine why would I let them take it? over my cold dead body

>>34976005
>Buy oil rig
>Forget about food

>>34976468
100% taxes dickhead
(your future)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8tabnxTXa4

>>34976474
What makes it yours?

>>34976005
>not making an outer haven instead

>>34976474

If you wanna die in the police shootout over county property taxes then be my guest but everyone who owns land has to pay property taxes for owning the land.

>>34976517
Fuck you've actually hit something here, really the government makes the concept of personal property moot. they can buttfuck anyone they want. It would be like paying full price a game with DRM that you have to pay every month to keep, you'd be insane to buy that.

>>34976553
woahh everyone has to do it? that's your moral standard? how many people are forced?
I'm ready to go, rather not be a slave.

I think people pay taxes to national governments because national governments in the west have done a good job of convincing us of their value. Probably everyone of us was taught (very superficially) about the "social contract", and we were instilled with all sorts of propaganda about the necessity and value of government.

Read John Taylor Gatto's book 'The Underground History of American Education' which talks about how mass-schooling was almost overtly a project of mass-control. There's an interesting section which explains why in Russia and Japan and so on they often wear military\navy-style uniforms in school, how the values of military regimentation were used by those who wanted the entire population similarly regimented.

Technically modern governments ARE relatively open, but that in itself causes problems because it makes the state try to act to "virtue signal", so in Australia where I live and most western countries - we have a situation which people would find unbelievable to actually face - that the government regularly makes sexist comments like "violence against women and girls by men and boys is never acceptable", you can literally find that shit in police stations, and the government and military associate themselves with these statements...and men are routinely arrested merely on the say-so of women.... but because government portrays itself to the public and especially women as doing this for a "moral" reason (stopp brutal men from oppressing women), the rights of men are essentially ignored...and because it's not overtly brutal like beheading these men, their suffering and the injustice is downplayed.

Taxes work similarly - most normies are part of a consumerist central-banking system and don't care if people who want to be free are forced back in. In fact, the people who benefit from and enjoy the system most WANT other to be forced in at a lower point in the pyramid.

-t. Neo

>>34976579
>>34976611
How old are you?
Your thoughts really don't seem developed.

>>34976611

I can't tell if you're being serious right now but yeah if you own land you have to pay taxes on it. Homeowners pay property taxes for the land their home is on and people with just land pay what's called land value taxes.

So if you don't wanna be a slave then don't buy land or do and pay your taxes like a normal adult.

>>34976630
how old are you fuckface faggot. tell me where I'm wrong. I'll wait.

>>34976673
yes that's a short summary of the property tax system work, but how do you justify it?

>>34976696

First off the taxes are yearly for most places. Secondly you enjoy the roads you use or the power lines that run to your house or the pipes that give you fresh water? Well that shit costs money to build and maintain, which is why we have taxes.

If you don't like it then go live in the fucking forest with the animals.

>>34976696
I'm 27.
If you buy land you're agreeing to various conditions (that you'll be paying tax) you then say you're not going to do this even though you've already signed the contract saying you will.

>>34976759
I have a well, I pay for electricity already, daddy government has secret exclusive road building technologies? honestly I don't even understand how a road works, get bill gates on it, must be pretty hard to make.

>>34976773
I should also mention. Here in Australia we have various levels of ownership.
Aboriginal (mostly just to shut them up)
Federal
State
property owner
I imagine there are quite a few laws in place that stop the fed/state owners from stealing land from people however I'm also quite sure if they wanted to they could still take the land.

>>34976611
who enforces your 'right' to property?

the state. and they charge you for it.

Look up social contract theory, Max Weber's definition of the state, read Crito, and grow up.

>>34976773
I think we've already established you are Forced to pay bud. you're a fuckin idiot fuck off

>>34976830
>I don't even understand how a road works
They are fairly hard to build when everything around them is privately owned.
A hilarious concept libertarians seem to forget

>>34976759

Would you agree that it's morally wrong for someone to say...buy up all the property surrounding a small property owned by an elderly couple past their working years (who were otherwise honest, honorable people who enriched other people when they were young), and then not only demand from them payment to enter or exit their land via yours, but to demand it ahead of time without knowing how often or whether they even will enter or exit their land via yours? Then threaten them with potential imprisonment or enslavement if they fail to pay?

MORALLY speaking that's pretty much what governments do to people. Yet it would be easy for governments instead to say "Anyone who's young and wants to take an active part in our society must first opt-in to a set of payments that'll be active so long as that person is actively engaging with our system and benefiting form it. Those who do not wish to participate may may basic use of our services when they do so, for a FAIR price, but they must not be pressed into compliance by threats or violence."

TLDR - the costs of those services ARE priced into the ultimate cost people pay to use them, especially with things like water supply. So justifying taxing people just for occupying land, especially when they're not making money to pay the government - is immoral.

>>34976858
You're not forced to buy.

>>34976857
I can protect it myself with my guns... the one who will kill me and take it away is granting my right to own? really great service

>>34975942

40 acres of land that could be subdivided and sold separately... yeah u gonna pay taxes on that.

>>34976830

Seriously are you fucking dumb? Paving roads and maintaining the asphalt and the concrete for public use costs money. Its not about difficulty its cost. Same with power lines, water, sewer, and other government services. Those all cost money that shit isn't free. Which is why people pay taxes.

If you read your deed, you will say that you don't completely own the land. You only own certain rights to the use of the land. The government has sovereignty over it.

>>34976867
You think they are pretty important? but no one would cede a 5 yard wide berth to be able to get somewhere? (like the cool bar to try the new microbrew ipa)

>>34976938
What the fuck are you on about.
How many ipa's have you had in the last 24 hours?

>>34976931
people pay because they are forced to, give an option and you can say they pay for those services.

>>34976962
Zero I won't touch that estrogenic shit

>>34976830
>honestly I don't even understand how a road works, get bill gates on it, must be pretty hard to make.
That's your understanding? You think you get chagred taxes because the government thinks that normal people don't possess the secret of road building and have no choice but to pay for it?
Roads have to be built and maintained all the time fuckwit.
>Give me everything for free
ugh

>>34976975
You're clearly underrage, how the hell would that work? Give an option? You can just OPT OUT of using taxes and enjoying the benefits? What would be the consequence, you get deported to Africa where you can enjoy a tax free life?

>>34977000
they HAVE TO be built then won't they still be built?

>>34976876

No you are occupying the governments land when you buy it. You agree that by purchasing the land that you will pay the government a small portion of the whole market value of the land every year for general upkeep of basic services the government provides for the welfare of society.

on the topic of owning land, what i think really sucks is shit like this: say you own property. all of a sudden some company buys up the property next to you, and all around you, because they want to turn your whole area into a shopping mall. they can literally force you to sell your property to them. theres all these stipulations that cities have now that if its in the "publics best interest" they can take you to court or citiy council and forcibly make you sell your land to them, against your will.

>>34977021
With what money you fucking insufferable mongoloid?

>>34977042
What happened to your guns you fucking child?

>>34977018
talking logically, try to keep up and think a little deeper.
you can't say the REASON people pay is for the utility if there was never an option. FOR EXAMPLE you are thirsty so you buy water. You bought the water because you were thirsty.
OR
Guy with a gun forces you to buy his water, because, he says, you need it to survive. whether you were thirsty or not, the REASON you bought the water was because of FORCE.

>>34976867

>They are fairly hard to build when everything around them is privately owned.

Probably the majority of large roads aren't just built on "public property", they're built as a result of CITY PLANNING, in other words - if roads weren't publicly owned, what would change are the ways cities develop and are shaped, and they would likely be shaped in a much healthier, positive way that benefits everyone.

Private roads would work this way - interested parties would collaborate to build roads, just as they collaborate for literally everything that mutually benefits them. All parties would be significantly more interested in the ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY of these roads, so fewer may well be built... but this can be a positive thing. The government being able to just build roads anywhere leads to immense waste of resources and funds and damage to wildlife and nature, and to the environment. It's a case of the government being able to offload negative costs onto other people simply because it has the power to do so.

Where i am in Australia, some of the major road networks into the city are privately constructed toll roads. These companies make money by charging you for how often you use their infrastructure...this is significantly more moral, fair, and economically efficient - and better for the environment.

The whole "roads culture" being at the core of society is a product of this statist value system you're promoting. The flow-on effects of removing this immorality would be immense. You'd probably see fewer roasties for one thing because it's harder for women to drive around to Chad's apartment, or cheat on their husbands, if roads are used more for transport of goods than people.

>>34977048
idk, you like roads, want to chip in?

>>34977042

Yes its called eminent domain clause.

However they must pay you the market value of the property in question. So if you have a home on a plot the government wants they must pay the market value of the land and the home prior to removing you.

>>34977094
What brilliant reasoning, now come up with a tax free solution to the following;
>Hospitals
>Police force
>School
>International relations
>Military
The list goes on

>>34977142
I didn't give any solution retard

>>34977115
Great so now instead of just throwing a few bucks in here and there to pay for teams of professionals with millions of dollars of road rollers, mixers and other equipment, I now have to buy all of those things myself and spend hundreds of hours for free maintaining 15 miles worth of road just so I can make my daily commute to my other job? That is if I have time to get my work over in the electric power station so that there's electricity to use at work.

>>34977025

>No you are occupying the governments land when you buy it.

But we are not having a 'legal' argument here, OP's question is about what is right and good. So yes, in reality the government uses the threat of violence and force to insist "this mine!", but the OP is asking - why is it fair for the government to claim this monopoly of force? Simply for existing?

To use an analogy related to the one I gave above... say in the year 1700 a man buys a large amount of land fairly for a certain sum. He then rents parcels of the land to tenants. The man hands his property down to his son, and in turn his son hands it down and so on. Now lets assume that this transmission of property occurred fairly each time... the land was never 'stolen', just inherited. Eventually let's say a situation evolves where all the land surrounding this plot of land becomes bought by others... is it fair that a generation of people should pay rent their whole lives to another man, just because that man inherited something his great-great-great-grandfather bought? I would say there is a legitimate question over the fairness of this, though I don't think the answer would be compulsion of stealing the land... in the case of government, the government DID NOT even fairly "buy" the land, it simply usurped ownership by force of legislation. It passed legislation saying "we own this". The first case is unfair, and the second case significantly more unfair for those who are alive today.

>government a small portion of the whole market value of the land every year for general upkeep of basic services the government provides for the welfare of society.

The government FORCES these services on people (services that are mostly technologies the government didn't even develop itself).

>>34977176
No. You haven't given anything aside from evidence of the fact that you're underrage from your absolutely juvile thoughts.
You don't belong here, come back when you're at least 18. There are plenty of places on the internet for you, stop shitting up mine.

>>34977233
>why is it fair for the government to claim this monopoly of force? Simply for existing?
For the greater good. Compare countries that don't have any of the commodities that we have and it's pretty self evident that an organized society is better than an unorganized one.

>>34977142

All of those things except perhaps Hospitals are negative, involve violence and compulsion and mass-stupidity, and in all cases including hospitals the human individual has no say in their existence.

>>34977142
wait are those the hardest things? ok, hospitals: there will be these things called hospitals, where people pay for medical treatment. boom. police: people will police themselves, easy. school: a place where kids are taught uhh actually impossible I see no solution international relations: honestly no idea what those creepy fucks get up to military: a voluntary military force I wonder if that's been tried

>>34977235
I'm probably older than you btw, but who gives a fuck the real issue is this low level thinking you operate on. stop getting triggered no one is taking away your Daddy government (I know how you like getting butt fucked butt boy)

>>34977253

>it's pretty self evident that an organized society is better than an unorganized one.

This is just your assertion. Most of the good things about western society are the LACK of organisation and control. The GOOD things about western society are things like common law rather than declarative law...private property...the idea of basic rights...liberal values (not having the government have a say in religious matters, not having the government dictate your personal life), etc. Literally all the best things we know are a result of greater freedom, not less freedom. You're using the internet right now - which is the product of millions of people working independently and freely. Paying for goods and services that they want...and WHY did they want the internet? Mostly because of the freedom it offered, the freedom to say what you want without censorship. Why are you here on 4chan arguing? Because 4chan is a good place for discussion because the anonymity and freedom allow constructive free discussion.

Literally nothing good comes from allying yourself with compulsion, control, regimentation.

>>34977200
maybe you and the people who want to drive places could hire a team (why would you do it yourself wtf) maybe Kickstart it
>>34977235
anyway you say people pay taxes for whatever reason, I prove they pay because of force, you totally skip over the part where you're wrong and now it's but what about THIS and THIS and THIS, you're a straight up chump kid

>>34977389

Yes the government forces you to pay taxes so that you can use services they provide like roads, firefighters and hospitals. If you don't like it then go live off the grid in the middle of no where.

>>34977515

>If a bully forces a younger, mute, disabled kid with significantly less strength to hand over his lunch money every day, this is perfectly alright because the younger, mute, disabled kid can always go to another school.

-t. statistcuck

>>34977544

More like a restaurant that charges you for the service they offer ie food. You don't have to eat the food, you can leave the restaurant but if you want to eat the food then you pay for it.

>>34977606

You literally cannot leave the restaurant, though. This is an utterly dishonest thing that you statists like to claim. Firstly, even to leave most countries you need to obtain a passport from the government, and then the only places you can go are literally places where OTHER national governments or mafia\gang organisations will carry out the same fleecing process.

My analogy is much more apt... because the bully is doing something wrong, he's violating someone else, and then claiming that it's his right so long as you are on "his" territory... in fact it's the same tactic carried out by mafias and criminal gangs.

The question isn't why don't I leave if I don't like it, it's why doesn't government leave ME alone.

>>34977094
So instead of paying taxes, every road should have a toll? You should have to pay a cent every time you flush to pay for sewer maintenance? Don't forget to tip the police when you hire them out to solve a crime.
It is like you say either a central government collects money from everyone and spends it on stuff or you pay individually. But then how do you pay for the army? Given a choice do you think the hippies would chip in for it? And then for services if everyone doesn't chip in then the costs would have to rise to compensate. I'm not sure what it's like there but here in Bongland we do get letters every year which have a rough break down on what taxes are being spent on and it's not like they're just mugging you

>>34977313
>a voluntary military force
How would that work? People working and fighting for free? Buying your own equipment? Who's building their own tank?

>>34977678

>So instead of paying taxes, every road should have a toll?

Not him, but what's the problem with this? Tolls can automated today incredibly easily. You have a receiver in your car (literally everyone already has a smartphone), so the moment you get onto the toll road it counts how long you were on the road, what road you took, etc. It charges you for your use - which means if you use it less frequently, you pay less. Pricing like this would also help traffic conditions - you can charge different rates at different times, it's all automated and comes out of your credit automatically.

>You should have to pay a cent every time you flush to pay for sewer maintenance?

Why the fuck not? If someone flushes huge amounts of water all the time, that has a bigger impact on the system.

>Don't forget to tip the police when you hire them out to solve a crime.

The police don't "solve crimes" in the sense that you're imagining. If you get robbed, they're not going to dust for fingerprints and send out a black cop and his asian friend to track down the thieves. They do a shit job. You're significantly safer and better off paying for precautionary policing - this can be done by private security. Live in a community with basic security patrols, and you'll be much safer than relying on cops. Cops shoot people who call them for help all the time, btw.

>>34977653
>it's why doesn't government leave ME alone
Because you are the absolute minuscule tiny fringe and the government has to work on helping the 99.99999% of the rest of the country that want to be part of a functioning society

>>34977653

The government does leave you alone though. They dont come into your home and tell you what to do. As long as you aren't breaking a law or causing a nuisance then the government really doesn't care what you do.All they ask is that you contribute to the general upkeep of the society as a whole for general use services.

File: smugwojak.png (102KB, 724x611px)

102KB, 724x611px

>These people saying the government nees property taxes to pay for roads
>When US Infrastructure is extremely poor and not maintained at all

You can justify any tax by saying MUH ROADS. Newsflash, it all goes to cronies in washington, NEETS, or the military.

>>34977751

If everyone is able to own basic arms for self-defence, this is immensely better than relying on a state standing army or handing over the power to the state so that it can COMPELL 19 year old men to murder and die on its behalf on the other side of the planet.

Also, in situations like in Syria at the moment, many communities come together and form their own defensive patrols, etc. They're very often backed up by being able to call in the military... but many of them take defence into their own hands.

>>34977797

That's not a moral argument. There would be a hundred things that you don't like about life, and which you'll experience which fuck you up - are you going to let it go because most people are completely apathetic about things? We're having a moral debate here.

>>34977769
My main point is instead of paying one sum to the government you're paying loads of small amounts. The services need the same amount of money and the idea you would save money wouldn't work because if people pay less then the cost would have to go up to balance out

>>34977810

>The government does leave you alone though.

No it doesn't. There are multiple things that I can do from my home that constitute crimes according to the state that would justify breaking into my home and arresting me and taking me off to prison. This happens every day to men whose wives accuse them of domestic violence. She just has to make ONE CALL during a fight, and the police will literally kick down your door if you don't answer, and they will find an excuse to arrest you. If you resist, they will arrest and possibly shoot you.

If I download certain material on my computer - simply a certain configuration of 0's and 1's, pixels on a screen - I can be arrested and imprisoned, or fined significantly.

>>34977678
no the hippy shouldn't have to pay for something they don't want. maybe prices will go down if there isn't a government monopoly (we all know how good the government is with money) idk how everything gets organized that's the point because it will happen on it's own, not what I or anyone else says should be. no we don't get a tax breakdown letter.
>>34977797
"society" is just individuals there will be society with or without top down coercive control.

I was posting at a pretty high intensity I'm out of energy hopefully I gave you something to think about.

>>34977821
I'd argue the government has a moral obligation to help as many people as possible which means when your beliefs contradict the government they have to ignore you for the benefit of the rest

>>34977839

>he services need the same amount of money and the idea you would save money

But that's absolutely not true, and I just outlined why it's not true for you, in the very post you're responding to.

By charging tolls, I can pay LESS if I use the service less! If I use the service more, I pay more - and someone else who uses it less saves money.

Not only that, but as I've mentioned in a comment earlier on, when the government is in charge of building roads for example, it will build them in places where very few people will use them, and often builds them to service special interests... when the pricing and cost is imposed on those who will ultimately use the service, there's a more pressing need for economy when it comes to building these roads. So probably less roads will be built, saving massive amounts of money (and saving damage to the environment, etc).

>>34977860
I said functioning society

>>34977869

Then you're simply arguing for majority right. You're saying that if 10 of us are in a room and 9 of us decide to kill you - that this is perfectly acceptable. Do you see how this is retarded?

Not only that, but it's only your assertion that most people are ok with the present state of affairs. Most people don't understand what takes place, most people don't have the time to consider the question, and when they do... their questions are dismissed by people like you saying "well most people agree with it, shut up".

Justice is a better value than majority right.

>>34977843

Because you are breaking the law. If you don't break the law then the government will not bother you because there is no reason too.

I've never had a problem with the government aside from getting pulled over for speeding, cause I broke the law.

I owm 160acres valued at 50,000 i pay 1200 a year, its 400 + property value x 7/1000 i think for canada

>>34977881
With your toll, people will start carpooling to pay less, then since traffic will be down the fee for the toll will have to rise to keep paying for the road. People don't want to pay tax or tolls, you clearly don't. That's why it's forced because given the choice people will want to save as much as possible and all the hidden services it pays for will be neglected. The fact is in society the people who need the services the most are the ones who can't pay for it, that's why taxes are percents. For example with the road toll paying the set fee will be a larger chunk of money from a fast food workers pay slip than a ceo. You'll end up with a society where people are trapped in poverty

>>34977908
>Most people don't understand what takes place
You clearly don't understand what takes place either, you just see your money disappearing and naturally don't like it because you can't see exactly what it's spent on

Ok so you don't want to pay taxes and just pay for services you use, but what about all the other things that taxes pay for?
Veterans Benefits are 160billion a year, theres 318million people in America so thats just over $500 per person. If payings voluntary is every single american going to pay? Doubtful and the more that don't pay the more the one who do will have to pay. Or veterans will get less.
So morally shouldn't a government to take a percent of everyones pay and then distribute it to help people who need it?

>>34978006

>With your toll, people will start carpooling to pay less, then since traffic will be down the fee for the toll will have to rise to keep paying for the road.

Looking at the toll roads I know, people don't seem to be *forced* to carpool, but carpooling would be a positive thing. Toll businesses simply adjust the cost like any other business. There are a variety of factors that can impact movie attendance, or the number of people flying on planes. The businesses adjust their models accordingly, to make sure they're making a profit. Unless the business itself is entirely untenable.

>t's forced because given the choice people will want to save as much as possible and all the hidden services it pays for will be neglected.

Nobody likes to pay for anything, but if there's a good or service people want, they will pay for it to get it.

>For example with the road toll paying the set fee will be a larger chunk of money from a fast food workers pay slip than a ceo. You'll end up with a society where people are trapped in poverty

Why is it a good thing for someone who doesn't eat takeout pizza to pay for someone who does? Fast food would either go out of business, OR far more likely - it would simply price the small added cost of the toll to the price of the Pizza.

>>34977101
Holy shit, did you just solve the whores problem?
Get rid of roads = get rid of whores.

>>34978216

>Veterans Benefits

It should be noted that veterans benefits are very often going to people who were 'pressured' into becoming participants in the 'system'. Many soldiers are men who were raised in a culture which objectifies them into roles of 'defenders' in order to exploit them, and then usually they get cheated by the VA anyway. The question of what to do with people who are currently reliant on government payments in some form is distinct from the issue of taxation. They have to be solved differently - the OP is asking a moral question about what's right. The issue you're asking is "how do we sort this issue at in this particular context".

>So morally shouldn't a government to take a percent of everyones pay and then distribute it to help people who need it?

Does it actually do this? Why are there homeless people on the streets? You're also advocating a system of complete dependency which is never healthy. Isn't it more valuable for people to get jobs rather than receive payments? The governments hands lots of welfare out to women, and MOST public servants in the west are women - and this forces many men at the bottom of society to go into shitty work, or to fall out the bottom of society entirely. The state is creating dependency by marrying women and aggressing against men. It's CREATING poverty.

>>34978233
>Why is it a good thing for someone who doesn't eat takeout pizza to pay for someone who does? Fast food would either go out of business, OR far more likely - it would simply price the small added cost of the toll to the price of the Pizza.
What are you talking about? I'm saying if someone has a low paying job the cost of a toll will have a bigger impact. For example if I made $10 a day, the toll is $1 for a day, at the end of the day I only have $9 because of the toll it's 10% of my pay.
But if some executive makes $100 a day he pays the same toll and has $99 and only pays 1% of his pay on it.
People with worse jobs will become trapped in poverty unable to save money or better themselves

>>34976498
Rigs are big enough you can grow your own food. Water would be a major problem, though.

>>34978315
>Does it actually do this? Why are there homeless people on the streets?
Yes it does do this, think about schools in poor neighbourhoods. If they only got money from the students parents they couldn't function.
There are lots of homeless programs the ones you see on the streets are ones who choose not to participate in those programs and still every effort is made to help them

>>34978319

>What are you talking about? I'm saying if someone has a low paying job the cost of a toll will have a bigger impact. For example if I made $10 a day, the toll is $1 for a day, at the end of the day I only have $9 because of the toll it's 10% of my pay.

Ok so you're going from the assumption that the delivery driver himself deals with the upkeep of his car, fuel, tolls, etc. In that case, he pays a little extra - but it's entirely possible there'll be more demand for pizza in a world of toll-roads, because people will be slightly more reluctant to drive, so the store will be able to charge more in order to pay the worker more.

>People with worse jobs will become trapped in poverty unable to save money or better themselves

If toll roads became a thing, it's entirely possible there'd be more jobs available for delivering things like groceries by professional, this could open up more job opportunities, higher incomes, etc. An executive today pays NOTHING directly for his road use, and this could be an executive say of a major trucking business or a postal company that makes immense use of public infrastructure at no added cost to the business, essentially. In other words, lack of toll roads creates an environment that's far more conducive to the create of large businesses, monopolies, etc.

This is actually a major theme of the work of those who've adocated against roads - that roads assist the rich, corporations, etc at the expense of the poor. Take this example - where I live, I'd MUCH prefer to get into work by simply riding a bike, but this is prohibitively too dangerous - why?? Because there aren't enough bike paths and there are too many roads to cross. If there were fewer roads, there would likely be more investment in bike trails, etc. Making it easier for poorer people to avoid having to buy a car and pay for fuel.

>>34978374

>Yes it does do this, think about schools in poor neighbourhoods. If they only got money from the students parents they couldn't function.

The problem is that many of these schools are dysfunctional to the point that they're worse for kids than staying at home. They're daycare centers or pseudo-prisons. The kids who come out of these schools aren't necessarily qualified for work let alone higher study. Then those kids become parents who expect that all this is "normal", and that investing if your own kids education isn't something you worry about... leave it to the schools. Even though today the average person at home has better access to training and educational material than someone in a school. You can download thousands of amazing educational apps for kids at all levels, lectures, training guides, etc. Instead they send kids off to get bullied or develop ADD in a toxic culture.

>There are lots of homeless programs the ones you see on the streets are ones who choose not to participate in those programs and still every effort is made to help them

I don't think you have much experience with this. I was talking to a homeless guy literally last night who got denied accommodation for the night because they hold 'lotteries' basically for who gets in, and even to get into those lotteries you have to apply early in the day, every day. You're ignoring the way the government spends this "assistance" money too - the US has the largest prison population in the world, quite possibly... it could be spending much of this money getting these men jobs and education, but it prefers to pretend it cares, and then imprison these men when they fail.

>>34978402
No you fucking moron, I'm saying a guy driving to work has to pay a toll to get there. it's not about delivery drivers it's about any low paid worker going to work

>>34976831
Yes. It's called eminent domain. They can take it if they need it.

>>34978493
>>34978402
For example a guy working in mcdonalds flipping burgers has to pay $1 to get their makes $10 end of the day he's paid 10% of his pay on road tolls just getting to work
Ceo pays $1 makes $100 he's paid 1% the cost of the toll has a bigger impact on the lives of lower paid workers.

>>34978493

I'm sorry for misunderstanding. The issue then is how cities are structured, and the main reason cities and employment are centered in central business districts that you have to travel significant distances to is because of ... the culture of roads! If roads weren't subsidised by the government, cities wouldn't develop in this manner. They'd be more decentralised because traveling to and from work (and traveling anywhere) would become a more important consideration for literally all people. So you'd see clusters of activity, but far more decentralised. This would benefit the poor.

The toll roads would then mostly be used for delivery of goods and services, transportation of heavy goods, etc. This would also add to efficiency of delivery of things the poor person might want to buy to improve his life. You'd have more bike trails, more walking paths, etc.

>>34976830
Honestly roads are quite racist when you really think about it,

>>34978519

McDonalds itself is a business that was built around the emerging infrastructure of roads. McDonalds allowed a small number of people to become obscenely rich by exploiting this sytem (a system everyone pays into, but the rich benefit from disproportionately). McDonalds helped to create this poisonous fast-food culture where the poorest people are rushing around so much trying to survive, saying "but look there's a cheap and easy way to shut the kids up - so i'll buy them something that does so but which will damage their bodies and minds in the long term!"

McDonalds is a business that relies on mass-factory producing shitty food, btw, which gets trucked literally everywhere. Their whole business model is build on the infrastructure that the poor pay into - but do the poor benefit much from McDonalds? I don't think so.

So McDonalds is a good example of WHY private-toll roads would be a good thing.

>>34978551
>So you'd see clusters of activity, but far more decentralised
So a segregation of the rich and poor. I support this idea let's get these ghettos built

>>34978608
Fine replace "mcdonalds flipping burgers" with "a janitor cleaning" as my example of a low paid job. My point still stands

>>34978642

...and the analogy could be applied to janitors too. Without government-funded roads, you'd see less density in business districts, businesses and job opportunities would be far more spread out. The janitor would more likely have a job much closer to home, and his path to his job might more likely be something like a bike path, so he'd get more fresh air on the way to work.

I think your mistake is that you think that ANY form of economic redistribution is somehow good for the poor, when that's simply not true. Just because the government taxes most people, including the rich, to pay for something more people use, doesn't mean it helps the poor. Look at the military - this is something everyone pays into allegedly in the interests of everyone... but who benefits? Not the low-income, low social status males who end up as cannon-fodder. Does the cannon-fodder guy benefit to the degree that a CEO does? The CEO gets to do business in a relatively secure country, while the other guy gets burnt to death.

>>34978713
Most people in the military don't die. It's a well paid job given there's no qualifications needed to get in. You receive training and qualifications which can benefit you in a post military career. It is a good job

>>34978713
My general point is paying tolls and fees for services is a bigger percent of a poor persons income than a rich person which is why the current system of taxing a percent of you income or land value is better. So yes everyone living in small villages who can walk to work would help with roads, but what about sewer maintenance and other hidden costs like that? Those would be fees that would eat more of a janitors pay than a ceo

>>34978801

I was using the example of guys in the military dying as an extreme example to make the point clear, because people literally die. I could also talk about men in prison for example - the government prefers a punitive approach, or it prefers at least to warehouse these men away from the rest of society rather than investing the money in ways that would empower these men to get jobs, get functional, etc. Poor people's lives often suck because the rich and powerful benefit from their efforts, it's institutional privilege and roads only assist that. Many of the original roads were built by central governments exclusively for military purposes...and roads as we know them today took off mostly because of large businesses and again government.

>>34978860

The janitor has to pay taxes too, even as a low-wage janitor in many cases...and then that taxation and the limits and controls of government limit his ability to become more than a janitor. But again, if he was paying directly for these things, he would NOT be paying some unbelievably huge cost. As you and others in this thread have implied, most people use these things as almost a universal necessity...people would still do this and this would make the cost per person relatively small. Things like sewer maintenance would likely get priced into the cost of renting or buying a home, for example - which would be spread over a community.

Anyway I'm leaving the thread so sorry won't be able to respond again if you reply.

>>34978941
but taxation is a percent meaning that a janitor would not pay the same cash amount as a Ceo. If they had to pay the same dollar figure the ceo would be better off and the janitor worse.
Also
>Things like sewer maintenance would likely get priced into the cost of buying a home
You mean like the land tax this whole thread started over?

>>34975942
Im debating on just doing life in prison for free 3 meals a day and motel room free. First stent in county jail was 21 days and gained 15 lbs cause you get 3 meals a day like your middle class.

>>34976507
>100% taxes
What in the fuck is this shit

>>34976553
They are called cucks.