Are Taxes The Biggest Scam In America?

Can a genius explain why some states charge you an extra 5 or 10 cents on bottles , plastics & cans at the checkout & fail to provide places for you to recycle those items & get your redemption. Why do you have to seek out a private vendor that gives you less for your recyclables ?
 
orgen said:
Can a genius explain why some states charge you an extra 5 or 10 cents on bottles , plastics & cans at the checkout & fail to provide places for you to recycle those items & get your redemption. Why do you have to seek out a private vendor that gives you less for your recyclables ?
Click to expand...
Quick Google search says those are bottle deposits not taxes, used to encourage recycling. U can return to some retailers or recycling centers and get the 5-10 cents back.

The unclaimed deposits usually go back to the distributors and in some cases a portion collected by the state and u can look up what they use it for, usually to help fund environmental initiatives.

Idk where you're located but I found multiple places near me where I can return plastics to get the deposits back.
 
ChicagoFigure said:
Quick Google search says those are bottle deposits not taxes, used to encourage recycling. U can return to some retailers or recycling centers and get the 5-10 cents back.

The unclaimed deposits usually go back to the distributors and in some cases a portion collected by the state and u can look up what they use it for, usually to help fund environmental initiatives.

Idk where you're located but I found multiple places near me where I can return plastics to get the deposits back.
Click to expand...
It is a tax genius , the state does not provide a place to redeem what they took from you & you either put it in a garbage can or go to a private company where you never recover what you spent . Y'all are way to smart
 
Last edited:
RandomOne said:
You want the government to control everything?

Think about the current state of the government. You want maga to control more of your life? Limit more of what you can and can't do. Strange

Not to mention you'll get taxed more. Though it seems a lot of people on here are ok with socialism as they hate millionaires and billionaires
Click to expand...

lol It's always funny when people make the "You'll get taxed more" argument. Sure, you will, but you guys never bring up the other side - you will essentially do away with bills. For example, if energy utilities were taken over by the government, your taxes would probably go up but you would no longer have to pay an electricity or gas bill. Also, since the government would be running it instead of a private company, the profit incentive would disappear, so the increase in your taxes needed to pay for the utilities would be less than the bill you get every month. The same exact argument got thrown out when Bernie was pushing universal healthcare. People were quick to throw out that his plan would increase taxes, but they never pointed out that, in exchange, premiums, copays, and deductibles would go away, meaning people would save money every year.

As for your other points, yes, I'd rather the government control certain things than private corporations. About the most corrupt thing the government does now is let private corporations get away with murder. If those corporations are no longer even in the mix, that's not really a problem. Also, if the people in our country were smart enough to move to such a system, they'd also be smart enough not to put Trump in office. Lastly, I don't advocate for a fully socialist system. It's not like I'm on here saying that the government should control the fashion industry or Hollywood. I just think certain essential needs like food, energy, and housing shouldn't be guided by a profit margin for companies. If the government can provide those things to citizens and keep prices reasonable, why wouldn't we prefer that over a system where corporations are allowed to prey on us?
 
The Lonious Monk said:
lol It's always funny when people make the "You'll get taxed more" argument. Sure, you will, but you guys never bring up the other side - you will essentially do away with bills. For example, if energy utilities were taken over by the government, your taxes would probably go up but you would no longer have to pay an electricity or gas bill. Also, since the government would be running it instead of a private company, the profit incentive would disappear, so the increase in your taxes needed to pay for the utilities would be less than the bill you get every month. The same exact argument got thrown out when Bernie was pushing universal healthcare. People were quick to throw out that his plan would increase taxes, but they never pointed out that, in exchange, premiums, copays, and deductibles would go away, meaning people would save money every year.

As for your other points, yes, I'd rather the government control certain things than private corporations. About the most corrupt thing the government does now is let private corporations get away with murder. If those corporations are no longer even in the mix, that's not really a problem. Also, if the people in our country were smart enough to move to such a system, they'd also be smart enough not to put Trump in office. Lastly, I don't advocate for a fully socialist system. It's not like I'm on here saying that the government should control the fashion industry or Hollywood. I just think certain essential needs like food, energy, and housing shouldn't be guided by a profit margin for companies. If the government can provide those things to citizens and keep prices reasonable, why wouldn't we prefer that over a system where corporations are allowed to prey on us?
Click to expand...
What kind of logic is that the bills would just go away? You're still paying extra. You're just paying it over here instead of over there

"The profit and incentive would disappear" Have you looked at our government??

That's just a crazy thought process you have honestly. Don't mean to offend but I'm just amazed by it
 
RandomOne said:
What kind of logic is that the bills would just go away? You're still paying extra. You're just paying it over here instead of over there

"The profit and incentive would disappear" Have you looked at our government??

That's just a crazy thought process you have honestly. Don't mean to offend but I'm just amazed by it
Click to expand...

I actually don't know what you're talking about here. How are you paying extra?

Just use electric utilities for an example. Say you're paying, on average, $200 a month for electricity. About $150 of that might actually be going to the provision of that electricity and the other $50 is going to making that private electric company a profit. Now say the government takes over. Your taxes are going to go up to account for the provision of that electricity, but they are going to go up by the $150 not $200 because the $50 that goes to fulfilling the profit incentive no longer exists. The hypothetical Federal Electric Agency wouldn't be trying to make a profit because that's not how government organizations function. A real world example is the USPS. It's cheaper to send things by USPS because unlike UPS or FedEx, the USPS isn't trying to make a profit.

You say my thought process is crazy, but it's legit weird to me that you think we're in better hands with private corporations than government agencies even nowadays when we know for a fact that the corporations are doing things like price gouging. Literally, one of the biggest problems with our government right now is that they aren't doing anything to keep the corporations in check.
 
A private company's drive for profit often incentivizes them to innovate, reduce waste, and operate more efficiently to attract and retain customers. A government agency without the pressure of competition or the need to generate a profit may have less incentive to be innovative or efficient

The hypothetical "Federal Electric Agency" wouldn't be trying to make a profit it could still face other challenges that lead to increased costs like bureaucratic inefficiencies, a lack of accountability, and a powerful union workforce that drives up labor costs

USPS has been losing money for years. This suggests that a lack of a profit motive doesn't automatically mean lower costs to the taxpayer and it can simply mean that the service is subsidized by taxpayers when it can't cover its own costs

Creating a new federal agency to manage a nationwide utility would involve significant administrative overhead including salaries for executives, human resources, legal departments, and a complex regulatory structure, etc. Those costs could be just as high or even higher than the profit margin of a private company

When a private company raises its prices customers have the option to switch providers (where competition exists) or reduce their consumption. With a tax increase citizens have no choice but to pay and the funding is guaranteed regardless of the agency's performance

Private companies that are driven by the profit motive often invest heavily in research and development to create new and more efficient and innovative products and services. A government monopoly without competition would likely be less motivated. That could lead to all kinds of problems

In a private system consumers can often choose between different providers, energy sources (where available), and pricing plans. In a government run system, this choice is often eliminated and all consumers are forced to accept the same service at the same price regardless of their individual needs or preferences

Government run services would be easy to have political interference. Decisions about where to build new infrastructure or what services to prioritize or how to get the money could be made based on political considerations rather than on what is best for the people
 
Government vs privatization is basically a pick your poison. But letting the government take over will absolutely not keep from taxes/costs rising.
 
RandomOne said:
A private company's drive for profit often incentivizes them to innovate, reduce waste, and operate more efficiently to attract and retain customers. A government agency without the pressure of competition or the need to generate a profit may have less incentive to be innovative or efficient

The hypothetical "Federal Electric Agency" wouldn't be trying to make a profit it could still face other challenges that lead to increased costs like bureaucratic inefficiencies, a lack of accountability, and a powerful union workforce that drives up labor costs

USPS has been losing money for years. This suggests that a lack of a profit motive doesn't automatically mean lower costs to the taxpayer and it can simply mean that the service is subsidized by taxpayers when it can't cover its own costs

Creating a new federal agency to manage a nationwide utility would involve significant administrative overhead including salaries for executives, human resources, legal departments, and a complex regulatory structure, etc. Those costs could be just as high or even higher than the profit margin of a private company

When a private company raises its prices customers have the option to switch providers (where competition exists) or reduce their consumption. With a tax increase citizens have no choice but to pay and the funding is guaranteed regardless of the agency's performance

Private companies that are driven by the profit motive often invest heavily in research and development to create new and more efficient and innovative products and services. A government monopoly without competition would likely be less motivated. That could lead to all kinds of problems

In a private system consumers can often choose between different providers, energy sources (where available), and pricing plans. In a government run system, this choice is often eliminated and all consumers are forced to accept the same service at the same price regardless of their individual needs or preferences

Government run services would be easy to have political interference. Decisions about where to build new infrastructure or what services to prioritize or how to get the money could be made based on political considerations rather than on what is best for the people
Click to expand...

The idea that private companies push innovation is overblown. A lot of innovation comes form investment by the government into private companies. That's neither here nor there. I'm not suggesting that the government take over the design and production of the systems used to produce energy, for example. I'm talking about replacing the the utilities companies. Often times, those companies are doing the opposite innovating or reducing waste.

All those issues that you listed for the hypothetical agency already exist with the private companies, so there's no issue there.

Nobody cares if the USPS loses money. It's still a cheaper alternative than UPS and FedEx, and again, part of the USPS is losing money is because people in t he government have been going after it in an effort to plus up corporate alternatives. Donald Trump himself was talking about getting rid of the USPS and letting Amazon take over mail. So you can't exactly use corporate attacks on government institutions as evidence that those government institutions don't work well.

Having alternatives only matters when profit is involved. When you're getting the lowest possible price because the profit margin is no longer a thing, you don't need to look for an alternative. Things like that are only a problem when you're talking about a private company.

The government also invests in research in development. In fact, you'd be surprised how many innovations were made through government funded research and then purchased by private companies for sales. Even the things that are created by private companies are often assisted by government subsidies. It's all irrelevant though. As I stated before, I'm not saying we should go full socialist. Socializing the telecommunications networks doesn't mean we wouldn't have Apple and Google making new phones or other private companies developing the cellular networking technologies.

Politics also plays a part in what private companies do. Why do you think they spend so much time lobbying?
 
The Lonious Monk said:
The idea that private companies push innovation is overblown. A lot of innovation comes form investment by the government into private companies. That's neither here nor there. I'm not suggesting that the government take over the design and production of the systems used to produce energy, for example. I'm talking about replacing the the utilities companies. Often times, those companies are doing the opposite innovating or reducing waste.

All those issues that you listed for the hypothetical agency already exist with the private companies, so there's no issue there.

Nobody cares if the USPS loses money. It's still a cheaper alternative than UPS and FedEx, and again, part of the USPS is losing money is because people in t he government have been going after it in an effort to plus up corporate alternatives. Donald Trump himself was talking about getting rid of the USPS and letting Amazon take over mail. So you can't exactly use corporate attacks on government institutions as evidence that those government institutions don't work well.

Having alternatives only matters when profit is involved. When you're getting the lowest possible price because the profit margin is no longer a thing, you don't need to look for an alternative. Things like that are only a problem when you're talking about a private company.

The government also invests in research in development. In fact, you'd be surprised how many innovations were made through government funded research and then purchased by private companies for sales. Even the things that are created by private companies are often assisted by government subsidies. It's all irrelevant though. As I stated before, I'm not saying we should go full socialist. Socializing the telecommunications networks doesn't mean we wouldn't have Apple and Google making new phones or other private companies developing the cellular networking technologies.

Politics also plays a part in what private companies do. Why do you think they spend so much time lobbying?
Click to expand...
The role of private companies is often to take those foundational technologies and commercialize them while making them available to consumers. The government may fund the basic science but it's often private enterprise that figures out how to make a practical and affordable product/service out of it. The argument that private utilities are not innovating or reducing waste is a key point but it's not universally true. Many private utilities are investing in new technologies like smart grids, renewable energy sources, and more efficient infrastructure often driven by a combination of regulatory requirements and a desire to reduce costs and increase reliability

While private companies can indeed be inefficient and bureaucratic they operate within a different framework. In a regulated private utility system there is at least the potential for regulatory oversight, public pressure, and the threat of competition to force some type of change. With government control those external pressures are often absent. A government agency might be subject to different kinds of political pressures and bureaucratic crap that could make it even less responsive to consumer needs than a private company

The issue isn't whether people "care" if the USPS loses money but rather where that money comes from. A private company that loses money goes out of business or has to change its model. A government agency that loses money is subsidized by taxpayers. USPS failing is a valid data point because they demonstrate that a non-profit-driven entity can still be financially unsustainable requiring taxpayer support to stay afloat. While political attacks on the USPS are a real factor the financial challenges of the organization existed long before those attacks and it's separate issue from whether a government run service can be self sufficient and actually work the way you're claiming it to

The value of alternatives isn't just about price. It's about service quality, reliability, and consumer choice. Even if a government controlled "everything" provides the "lowest possible price" it might not provide the best service. What if a consumer wants to use a more expensive but more reliable energy source? Or a communications network with better coverage? A single government provider by its nature offers a "one size fits all" solution. In a private system, even if the government regulates the core infrastructure there can still be multiple private companies offering different service packages with different pricing models to meet many different customer needs

Government investment in R&D and private company lobbying are both undeniable realities. They highlight different problems though. The lobbying of private companies is an attempt to influence a separate government entity. In a government controlled system that lobbying is replaced by internal political maneuvering within the government itself. The problem of political influence doesn't disappear.. it just changes. A government utility could be influenced by a different set of political pressures like a powerful union or a desire to reward politically connected contractors which could lead to inefficiency and higher costs just as much as private company lobbying
 
RandomOne said:
The role of private companies is often to take those foundational technologies and commercialize them while making them available to consumers. The government may fund the basic science but it's often private enterprise that figures out how to make a practical and affordable product/service out of it. The argument that private utilities are not innovating or reducing waste is a key point but it's not universally true. Many private utilities are investing in new technologies like smart grids, renewable energy sources, and more efficient infrastructure often driven by a combination of regulatory requirements and a desire to reduce costs and increase reliability

While private companies can indeed be inefficient and bureaucratic they operate within a different framework. In a regulated private utility system there is at least the potential for regulatory oversight, public pressure, and the threat of competition to force some type of change. With government control those external pressures are often absent. A government agency might be subject to different kinds of political pressures and bureaucratic crap that could make it even less responsive to consumer needs than a private company

The issue isn't whether people "care" if the USPS loses money but rather where that money comes from. A private company that loses money goes out of business or has to change its model. A government agency that loses money is subsidized by taxpayers. USPS failing is a valid data point because they demonstrate that a non-profit-driven entity can still be financially unsustainable requiring taxpayer support to stay afloat. While political attacks on the USPS are a real factor the financial challenges of the organization existed long before those attacks and it's separate issue from whether a government run service can be self sufficient and actually work the way you're claiming it to

The value of alternatives isn't just about price. It's about service quality, reliability, and consumer choice. Even if a government controlled "everything" provides the "lowest possible price" it might not provide the best service. What if a consumer wants to use a more expensive but more reliable energy source? Or a communications network with better coverage? A single government provider by its nature offers a "one size fits all" solution. In a private system, even if the government regulates the core infrastructure there can still be multiple private companies offering different service packages with different pricing models to meet many different customer needs

Government investment in R&D and private company lobbying are both undeniable realities. They highlight different problems though. The lobbying of private companies is an attempt to influence a separate government entity. In a government controlled system that lobbying is replaced by internal political maneuvering within the government itself. The problem of political influence doesn't disappear.. it just changes. A government utility could be influenced by a different set of political pressures like a powerful union or a desire to reward politically connected contractors which could lead to inefficiency and higher costs just as much as private company lobbying
Click to expand...

The USPS was fine until they instituted that Delivering for America plan, which was in part implemented to make the USPS more corporate friendly. The USPS operated for more than a century, and still operates to this day despite the attacks. It's already been proven that the government can run a service that works.

Having a government run service doesn't mean that private alternatives can't exist. Again, I'm not arguing for the abolishment of all private entities. I'm saying that for needs, the government should offer options that serve as a baseline.

I think you're stuck on this idea that I'm arguing for socialism. I'm not. I'm arguing for the same mixed system that we already have, I just think that the socialized components of our system can be expanded to include things like secondary education, food production, energy production, etc... How that looks in practice, I can't say. We'd have to experiment, but I'm positive we can come up with something better than private corporations owning everything and preying on the citizens.
 
The Lonious Monk said:
The USPS was fine until they instituted that Delivering for America plan, which was in part implemented to make the USPS more corporate friendly. The USPS operated for more than a century, and still operates to this day despite the attacks. It's already been proven that the government can run a service that works.

Having a government run service doesn't mean that private alternatives can't exist. Again, I'm not arguing for the abolishment of all private entities. I'm saying that for needs, the government should offer options that serve as a baseline.

I think you're stuck on this idea that I'm arguing for socialism. I'm not. I'm arguing for the same mixed system that we already have, I just think that the socialized components of our system can be expanded to include things like secondary education, food production, energy production, etc... How that looks in practice, I can't say. We'd have to experiment, but I'm positive we can come up with something better than private corporations owning everything and preying on the citizens.
Click to expand...
You kind of shifted there from the focus of completely controlled to expanding the current mixed system. Like ideology to pragmatism, total replacement to coexistence, abolition of private sector to regulation and expansion

USPS has faced significant financial challenges for decades before the "Delivering for America" plan. From a combination of factors like the internets impact on mail volume and a congressional mandate from 2006 requiring it to prefund retiree healthcare benefits for 75 years and a requirement no other private or public entity has. USPS's struggles aren't solely due to "corporate attacks" but are also a result of government policies and an ever changing market

The fact that the government can run a service isn't the point of contention. The key is whether it can do so more efficiently, innovative, and responsively than the private sector. The argument against expanded government control holds that the incentives of a government agency are fundamentally different from those of a private company. A government agency insulated from market pressures may prioritize political goals or bureaucratic stability over efficiency and consumer satisfaction

The idea of a government "baseline" for essential needs is a compelling idea but it comes with its own set of problems. The presence of a government controlled alternative could have unintended consequences for the private sector. If the government offers a service at a price subsidized by taxpayers it then becomes difficult for private companies to compete potentially leading to a decline in private sector investment and innovation

Take the healthcare example again. In a country with a single payer system private hospitals and clinics may struggle to attract talent and funding when the public system offers a stable government funded alternative. This could lead to a two tiered system where the public option is a barebones service and the private option becomes an expensive luxury for those who can afford it or it may even lead to the outright decline of private options. Instead of a healthy mixed system you could end up with a single average or crappy public service and a crippled private sector
 
RandomOne said:
You kind of shifted there from the focus of completely controlled to expanding the current mixed system. Like ideology to pragmatism, total replacement to coexistence, abolition of private sector to regulation and expansion

USPS has faced significant financial challenges for decades before the "Delivering for America" plan. From a combination of factors like the internets impact on mail volume and a congressional mandate from 2006 requiring it to prefund retiree healthcare benefits for 75 years and a requirement no other private or public entity has. USPS's struggles aren't solely due to "corporate attacks" but are also a result of government policies and an ever changing market

The fact that the government can run a service isn't the point of contention. The key is whether it can do so more efficiently, innovative, and responsively than the private sector. The argument against expanded government control holds that the incentives of a government agency are fundamentally different from those of a private company. A government agency insulated from market pressures may prioritize political goals or bureaucratic stability over efficiency and consumer satisfaction

The idea of a government "baseline" for essential needs is a compelling idea but it comes with its own set of problems. The presence of a government controlled alternative could have unintended consequences for the private sector. If the government offers a service at a price subsidized by taxpayers it then becomes difficult for private companies to compete potentially leading to a decline in private sector investment and innovation

Take the healthcare example again. In a country with a single payer system private hospitals and clinics may struggle to attract talent and funding when the public system offers a stable government funded alternative. This could lead to a two tiered system where the public option is a barebones service and the private option becomes an expensive luxury for those who can afford it or it may even lead to the outright decline of private options. Instead of a healthy mixed system you could end up with a single average or crappy public service and a crippled private sector
Click to expand...

I didn't shift anything. I said from the start that I don't believe in full socialism. I just believe that things that are needed for human survival should be controlled by the government.

I'm not going to really go point by point. I'm just going to say that a lot of things you point as being a problem with the system I suggest are already problems. For instance, we already have a two tiered system when it comes to the healthcare system. The best of the best don't tend to work most of their hours supporting common people. Beyond that, it's not like most people need the best doctor in the world to get the care they need.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree. Corporations pray on the people. What difference does it make if they do things more efficiently when they can jack up the cost, buy off politicians and do a host of other dirty things that end up being bad for society. Think about solar panels. That's technology that's been around for decades. They could have been far better implemented by now, but the old school energy corporations basically paid politicians to make rules that stifled solar power.
 
The Lonious Monk said:
I didn't shift anything. I said from the start that I don't believe in full socialism. I just believe that things that are needed for human survival should be controlled by the government.

I'm not going to really go point by point. I'm just going to say that a lot of things you point as being a problem with the system I suggest are already problems. For instance, we already have a two tiered system when it comes to the healthcare system. The best of the best don't tend to work most of their hours supporting common people. Beyond that, it's not like most people need the best doctor in the world to get the care they need.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree. Corporations pray on the people. What difference does it make if they do things more efficiently when they can jack up the cost, buy off politicians and do a host of other dirty things that end up being bad for society. Think about solar panels. That's technology that's been around for decades. They could have been far better implemented by now, but the old school energy corporations basically paid politicians to make rules that stifled solar power.
Click to expand...
You're right that corporations in their pursuit of profit can and do engage in a variety of harmful practices from price gouging to political lobbying that stifles innovation. The solar panel example is a good one and it perfectly illustrates the argument against leaving essential services in the hands of the private sector. But what you're describing isn't a problem unique to the private sector. The "dirty things" you mention political maneuvering, corruption, and a lack of innovation are just as prevalent if not more so in government

Consider your example of solar panels. When you talk about old energy corporations paying off politicians to stifle the industry you're essentially describing the problem of regulatory capture. This is a well documented phenomenon where a government agency that is supposed to be regulating an industry ends up serving the interests of the very companies it is meant to regulate. The government and the corporations become partners not adversaries. So in this scenario the government isn't the solution.. it's part of the problem. Your argument for putting essential services in the hands of the government to prevent this is paradoxical as it gives the very entities that are being "bought off" even more direct control

A government run utility while not driven by profit would be driven by a different set of incentive like political expediency and bureaucratic self preservation. Decisions about where to invest in infrastructure. Could be made based on which district has the most powerful politician and not on where the need is greatest. Projects could be over budget and behind schedule with little to no accountability because there's no competition to worry about. A government agency that is failing financially doesn't go out of business... it gets a taxpayer bailout. The same lack of a profit motive that you see as a benefit could also be its greatest weakness leading to a bloated, inefficient, and unresponsive system that is difficult to change

The best of the best doctors might not work most of their hours supporting common people in a private system but at least in theory there's a pressure on private hospitals to attract and retain those doctors to maintain a certain level of prestige and quality. In a government run, one size fits all system where everyone is guaranteed a baseline service.. that pressure for excellence and innovation can disappear entirely. The incentive to go above and beyond is diminished which can lead to a system that is universally mediocre instead of one that has a mix of quality levels. The existence of a "two-tiered" system doesn't automatically mean that a single tiered system is better.. it might just mean that you've eliminated the possibility of ever getting anything better than "good enough"
 
I think one of the biggest scams toll...SeaSnake will probably know about this one as well. When I was visiting my sister for that week Chesapeake bridge got me.. go online attempt to pay by plate nope won’t let me. Of course they send the invoice in the mail late as hell.. and I’ve been working on the road for the last few months by the time I get back home to FL that $7 toll is now $64 with late fees.. they can fuck off if they think I’m paying that 😂 I’ll call when I get a chance and go Karen on them. Either they gonna drop them late fees or expect to get zero from me.


Another example driving back through from De through through Chi to Milwaukee of course its the electronic tolls and you have no clue how much your paying and various depending on time of day and your billed every few miles. Go online for each state ($5-14) pay what I owe get to IL toll and fuckers $70+ dollars 😒 for a pickup truck not towing anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top