virtually everyone who wants to raise taxes think that they are somehow going to escape it (LETS TAX THE WEALTHY!), (LETS TAX CIGARETTES!) by making groups they either do not like or groups that are unpopular pay more. Most people who support increased taxation and spending are those who think they are going to pretty much get something for nothing.
Blatant strawman.
What? How can you possibly say that? How many times have you said that the rich need to pay more? How many times has that been said by so many on this very website? I thought that soaking the rich was a well known populist movement. Or how about the taxing of luxury goods for that matter. I seem to remember that increasing the cigarette taxes had a good amount of popularity. I thought you were politically aware of things.
First of all, it's a myth that unions are, in any way, equal to corporations in influence over the government.
That's not a point I make. Nor is it a comparison I ever drew. I am perfectly aware of vastly influential corporate lobbyists.
Non-corporate lobying is a joke.
Oh really? Where do think the minimum wage came from?
(answer: union lobbies)How about the carbon tax in various nations? Various other environmental laws?
( various environmental groups)Seatbelt laws?
( various organizations like M.A.D.D.)Faith based initiatives?
( religious groups)Increase of payment and benefits for transit workers? If you think this is small potatoes, you are fortunate enough to not have had to deal with union strikes in places like New York City
( transit worker unions)Now, whether these things I mentioned are good, bad or somewhere in between is irrelevant to my point. The point being that there are numerous, influential non-corporate lobbies that harass every level of government everywhere.
Second of all, firing people in an extremely inefficient way to achieve financial security. A far better solution is a slight rise in taxation.
Well, that is an economics debate, the kind I prefer to avoid making broad based statements on. I would have to see the numbers in each particular case.
That is why people want higher taxation.
Why
some people want higher taxation. 15,000 is a drop in the bucket of a state where over 12 million people live. You can't even have a good rock concert with 15,000 people. Besides, a least of good chunk of them in that crowd were direct recipients of taxpayer money so there is no surprise there.
You trade a certain percentage of your income plus sales tax, stamp duty and car registration for a road network and a defence force.
You are mostly wrong about this. For starters, the sales tax in the USA goes to the states. Our defense force is paid for by the federal government. The stamp duty pays for the post office. Roads are actually paid for by gasoline taxes and tolls. I suppose you could add in car registration there as well. Regarding the military, the United States had one LONG before it had an income tax. It was not exactly a slouch back in those times either. In addition, the budget of the military is the same amount of money that is pulled in by corporate taxes.
It's called the social contract. It's not an involuntary contract, because if you chose not to accept it, you may freely move to Somalia.
That is a myth in all respects. I was taught about the constitution, the bill of rights, the Magna Carta, but when did they pass the social contract? I must have either not been paying attention in school or maybe it is something that is not taught in school. If the latter be the case, I wonder what the reason for that may be.
In addition to moving to Somalia, I can move to plenty of perfectly civilized and modern places that either a)have very few of these taxes b)have the same taxes, but at much lower amounts c)have different taxes d)have very little in terms of taxation e)any combination of the other choices
Besides, I never signed any such document called 'The Social Contract'. I don't even recall seeing the document. I don't even know if anyone else bothered to sign it. How can anyone call this a contract? At best, it is a contract between the negotiating parties (assuming there were any), but a series of edicts forced down to everyone else. Even slavemasters had contracts with other slavemasters. But that didn't mean anything to the slaves.
Wallmart can completely not exist at all and I wouldn't know, ala Enron.
Well if you can just safely ignore them, they can't be all that bad. Besides, that has nothing to do with coercion.
At least the government pretends to have Freedom of Information
They certainly do, but what does this have to do with coercion?
Wallmart can make you work whenever it likes. Wallmart can make you work in crappy conditions.
No it can't. I never worked for Wal-Mart a day in my life. Nor am I aware of anyone being kidnapped by Walmart in order for them to be forced to be slave labor. You can quit anytime you like, assuming that you are even an employee to begin with. To even be an employee there, you have to agree to various terms with Walmart.
Most terrifying of all, Wallmart can decide that you don't work any more and let your life collapse around you.
Only if you are one of their employees. Walmart can't make this decision about Starbucks employees or McDonalds employees, just their own.
And if it weren't for the tender mercies of the government, they wouldn't even have to pay you.
The same 'tender and merciful' government also has the capability to fire people. In fact, depending on what office you work for, you might not even be able to quit legally in the conventional sense. For example, the US Military. You can quit your Walmart job at any time. But this point of yours is where you finally talk about coercion in a correct sense.