View Poll Results: Should the government be able to regulate this market in advance as stated below?

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    3 12.50%
  • No

    19 79.17%
  • Other

    2 8.33%
Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 167

Thread: Mandated Burial Plot

  1. #31
    Guru
    OKgrannie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,221

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    Excellent point.
    In the future, I'd like to see health, death care and retirement care all combined..
    And, Zyphin 's wife does possess way above average common sense..(one smart cookie)
    Burial at sea, my idea, I am a penny-pincher...lol
    Who's going to pay transportation costs for the corpse?
    "Though no one can go back and make a brand new start, anyone can start from now and make a brand new ending."
    ~Anonymous

  2. #32
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,132

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Hmm... just a quick look and I found a few articles about this. Indigents do get buried at taxpayers expense - usually at the local / county levels.


    Indigent burials, and cost to public, on rise | StarTribune.com




    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/us/11burial.html?_r=1
    Daugaard signs law on cremation of indigents
    cremation. the other alternative
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  3. #33
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    It's not semantics at all, unless the congress had unlimited power to tax in any and every way it wishes which is not the case as there are limitations placed upon the government with regards to how and what they can tax. Simply because you dislike the notion of how one can look at the argument makes their opinion no less relevant than your own.
    Huh? I didn't say it did...

    In the case of stating "If you purchase something, we will take less of your taxes away", the only entity with a negative effect DIRECTLY on them is the Government. If the Citizen chooses to go against what the government is urging him to do, he takes no damage to where he would be financially had the government not acted at all.

    In the case of stating "If you don't purchase something, we will take more of money away from you in taxes", the only entity with a negative effect DIRECTLY on them is the CITIZEN. If the citizen chooses to go against what the government is urging him to do, he directly takes damage to where he would be financially had the government not acted at all.
    I think this reasoning is due to the cognitive bias known as loss-aversion: People value what they already have and might lose, more than they value what they don't have and might gain. ANY tax creates "negative effects" upon anyone whom it is imposed on, and ANY tax credit creates "negative effects" upon anyone whom does not receive it. These are merely accounting differences; at the end of the day, both the government and the people end up with the same number of dollars in their pocket whether the transaction is called a tax credit or a penalty. And as such, I find it difficult to believe that anyone is "harmed" more in one situation than in the other.

    This is why many conservatives don't have a LARGE issue with tax credits (though some even have issues with those because its government interfering with the market in the first place, which they feel they have no role in doing). However, if you went:

    "We're going to raise your income taxes by $500. We're also going to offer a tax credit of $500 for those who purchase solar panels". Then conservatives would have an issue because in this particular case, you're not actually giving a tax credit but essentially instituting an end around attempt to force individuals to purchase something. Again, in this particular case, an individual who goes against what the government is urging him to do is damaged in a direct fashion compared to a situation where the government took no actoin at all.
    That specific example was actually my very next question. OK, so if that would be unconstitutional, how can you possibly determine if the government is doing an end runaround? I think you would agree that both of those elements (taxing everyone $500 and offering a $500 credit to those who buy solar panels) are constitutional in and of themselves...but somehow when they are combined they are no longer constitutional?

    I don't see how anyone, including the courts, could possibly make this determination. Our tax code is incredibly complex. There are hundreds or thousands of deductions, credits, exemptions, and different types of taxes. If, for example, the government overhauled the tax code, and one of the provisions was to increase the solar tax credit by $500, and another provision was to increase the taxes on the wealthy by 1%, how could you possibly determine if the two were related? And does this mean that any tax credits for private products must necessarily increase the deficit (if they can't be offset by tax increases elsewhere)?

    Notice throughout I've been stating direct. Things such as "public services" are not a "direct" side effect of such situations imho
    OK, well someone who doesn't benefit from the solar panel tax credit could claim "direct harm" because he had to pay more in taxes for a given level of government services than he otherwise would, in order to pay for the tax credit. That's taking money directly out of his pocket, no?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  4. #34
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    The framers could not foresee much of how the world has changed, but they did their best to account for such things. One way in which they did that, was to allow for a system that could amend the constitution in the event it needed to be. Pretty brilliant thinking on their part.
    Not really. We have the most difficult to amend constitution in the entire world. The only reason our system is able to function at all is because we typically DON'T follow the original intent of the Constitution.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #35
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Not really. We have the most difficult to amend constitution in the entire world. The only reason our system is able to function at all is because we typically DON'T follow the original intent of the Constitution.
    Yes, really. It was made difficult to amend for a reason: To avoid stupid amendments thrown through at a whim. If it was easy, then the bible thumpers would already have put through an amendment to ban gay marriage. That would be just as stupid as this 'mandate'.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  6. #36
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Not really. We have the most difficult to amend constitution in the entire world. The only reason our system is able to function at all is because we typically DON'T follow the original intent of the Constitution.
    Not only that, but as a couple of centuries have passed, it would be near impossible for our founding fathers to have anticipated everything that would transpire. And we can not fully know how they would have addressed the issue that have come up or aply the law to them.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #37
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    You are not thinking for yourself because you refuse to do your homework and read the constitution and federalist papers, instead relying on the words of others that support your views.
    I've read those. Don't fool yourself. This is impart why I know it isn't as clear as you pretend. Now, focus.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #38
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by barbarian_style View Post
    I should not be forced to purchase something I may never use or utilize.
    Yet, if you guess wrong, someone else will have to carry you.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #39
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Not only that, but as a couple of centuries have passed, it would be near impossible for our founding fathers to have anticipated everything that would transpire. And we can not fully know how they would have addressed the issue that have come up or aply the law to them.
    Another horrible (but typical) liberal excuse. They addressed government, they wanted it limited. There is nothing today that is not covered in some fashion. The problem liberals have, is they WANT certain things in there, that do not belong there, as they are not part of what government should be part of or be involved in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I've read those. Don't fool yourself. This is impart why I know it isn't as clear as you pretend. Now, focus.
    Ah, a liar I see. At least now I know to have zero faith in anything you post.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  10. #40
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    Another horrible (but typical) liberal excuse. They addressed government, they wanted it limited. There is nothing today that is not covered in some fashion. The problem liberals have, is they WANT certain things in there, that do not belong there, as they are not part of what government should be part of or be involved in.



    Ah, a liar I see. At least now I know to have zero faith in anything you post.
    They also found they needed a stronger federal government, which is what the articles of confederation failed, as it was too weak. And limited doesn't mean absent. How far and how limited is the issue.

    Not only that, there as been two hundred years of law added to and precedence to consider as well. There is a larger picture here than you give credit to.

    Now, I know it is hard for some to discuss without name calling. Hell, it may even be what appeals to people coming here. But make a choice. Do you want to discuss or name call. I can do either.


    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •