So...why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

Lakryte said:

First, your assumption that the rich always use more of the infrastructure is bogus and made up. Many of the rich send their kids to private schools for starters. And the rich are less likely to use public transportation.

Second, even if the rich always use public infrastructure more, the already pay more in taxes anyway. If everyone pays a flat tax of 10%, the rich will be paying more in taxes. Aman making $10k will pay $1k in taxes, and a woman making $1 million will pay $100k in taxes--100 times more than the poorer man.

You are merely asking the rich to pay a higher percentage of their income to taxes to provide and maintain your desires. You can try to spin it all you want, but that's what you're asking. At least be honest about it.

Click to expand...

You really don't understand what I mean by infrastructure, do you? It's not just public transportation and schools - per person, those are relatively inexpensive.

For the rich, there's the airspace for their jets, the time taken up for their safety by the FAA. There's the taxpayer-funded infrastructure for their yachts, including having the Coast Guard ready to come save them when their yacht's in trouble. There's their houses on the beach, which the taxpayers replace (yes, we do) when a hurricane destroys them. There's the time that they see our senators and representatives face-to-face telling them what they want. There's the fire and police protection for their businesses, the roads where their delivery trucks go.

On top of all that, the very rich normally pay less in taxes percentage-wise as their secretaries do - Warren Buffet said it himself.

You really need to widen your mind, and stop trying to protect the rich - they're not the 'job creators'. We in the middle class are the real job creators, always have been. Think about the big companies out there - how many of them were started by multi-millionaires? Outside the financial sector and perhaps Big Oil, not many. Apple? Started in a garage. So did Microsoft. Goodyear started in a kitchen or some such. The stories of middle-class people making it big are effectively endless.

Glen Contrarian said:

There are three observations:

(1) ALL first-world democracies are generally socialized, and have big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation, whereas
(2) NO first-world nations at all meet the conservative demands of zero socialism, small government, low taxes, and weak (if any) regulation. And
(3) ALL nations which DO have small governments, low taxes, and weak regulations ARE third-world nations.

If including socialist programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Head Start, free public schools and the like are (as conservative pundits claim) a sure way to the economic dustbin of history, why is it that America (and the British Commonwealth before us) started down this road eighty years ago (FDR's New Deal) and we've been the most successful nations in human history? Is it just an accident or coincidence? Or does the inclusion of such socialist programs actually contribute to a nation's economic health?

Click to expand...

You have it backwards. It is the wealth that enables the public largesse. It is not the public largesse that enables the wealth.

Glen Contrarian said:

There are three observations:

(1) ALL first-world democracies are generally socialized, and have big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation, whereas
(2) NO first-world nations at all meet the conservative demands of zero socialism, small government, low taxes, and weak (if any) regulation. And
(3) ALL nations which DO have small governments, low taxes, and weak regulations ARE third-world nations.

If including socialist programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Head Start, free public schools and the like are (as conservative pundits claim) a sure way to the economic dustbin of history, why is it that America (and the British Commonwealth before us) started down this road eighty years ago (FDR's New Deal) and we've been the most successful nations in human history? Is it just an accident or coincidence? Or does the inclusion of such socialist programs actually contribute to a nation's economic health?

Click to expand...

My guess is that for a nation to be economically successful, it must be stable and integrated. And in order to get a stable, integrated society, you simply need a certain minimum of social safety nets and/or policies that make sure inequality doesn't grow beyond a certain level.

When inequality gets too big, there is no solidarity between the citizens anymore, they no longer identify with their country and society breaks apart into different factions. You then either get social unrest even to the point of civil war, or you choose an authoritarian government that keeps society together by force and coercion.

But when there is not enough solidarity, there is not enough trust. And without trust, you cannot run a successful economy.

Jack Hays said:

You have it backwards. It is the wealth that enables the public largesse. It is not the public largesse that enables the wealth.

Click to expand...

I guess I don't see it as either/or issue. Wealth allows society to provide for the poor, doing so maintains conditions that allow for more accumulation of wealth, such as social stability, widespread support for favorable economic decisions, efficient allocation of resources to productive activities rather than dealing with social unrest/public safety/defending elites from mob actions and/or revolutions.

Glen Contrarian said:

There are three observations:

(1) ALL first-world democracies are generally socialized, and have big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation, whereas
(2) NO first-world nations at all meet the conservative demands of zero socialism, small government, low taxes, and weak (if any) regulation. And
(3) ALL nations which DO have small governments, low taxes, and weak regulations ARE third-world nations.

If including socialist programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Head Start, free public schools and the like are (as conservative pundits claim) a sure way to the economic dustbin of history, why is it that America (and the British Commonwealth before us) started down this road eighty years ago (FDR's New Deal) and we've been the most successful nations in human history? Is it just an accident or coincidence? Or does the inclusion of such socialist programs actually contribute to a nation's economic health?

Click to expand...

Where do you draw the line between big government and small government? Most people consider the US's taxes and spending to be low.

Glen Contrarian said:

When you say "false", you should show precisely how it is that there are any first-world democracies who do not have big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation. AND you should show how there are any nations that DO have small government, low effective taxes, and weak (or no) regulation are not third-world nations.

And btw - did I say that first-world nations ARE socialist? No. They are socialized democracies, meaning that they ALL have integrated into their governments programs which are socialist in nature. My points stand.

Click to expand...

It's your thread. The burden of proof is on you.

Lakryte said:

He didn't list any such examples.

Click to expand...

Erm, yes he did?

He listed high speed rail in communist China, as well as progression made by Germany/Russia in the early-mid 20th century. Free market does help foster technologiccal progression, as he admitted. However, a free market is not a necessity for progression, as you claimed was fact.

Glen Contrarian said:

There are three observations:

(1) ALL first-world democracies are generally socialized, and have big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation, whereas
(2) NO first-world nations at all meet the conservative demands of zero socialism, small government, low taxes, and weak (if any) regulation. And
(3) ALL nations which DO have small governments, low taxes, and weak regulations ARE third-world nations.

If including socialist programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Head Start, free public schools and the like are (as conservative pundits claim) a sure way to the economic dustbin of history, why is it that America (and the British Commonwealth before us) started down this road eighty years ago (FDR's New Deal) and we've been the most successful nations in human history? Is it just an accident or coincidence? Or does the inclusion of such socialist programs actually contribute to a nation's economic health?

Click to expand...

Answer: Thirst for power. All governments are self promoting agencies. Democracies need consent, so governments led by arrogant and narcissistic men / women with huge egos promise benefits to gain consent for the power and adoration they seek.

chromium said:

Of course you have no use for it, since you've never been vulnerable to poverty

Hypothetical and all that, but it's plain to see why you'd feel different had you grown up on food stamps, a "handout" that in reality meant living primarily off ramen noodles, friends living in a duplex with 5 siblings and a single parent who's never around due to working 2 jobs and hell, there was even a local kid whose parents had to beg for donations for a life saving treatment. Seeing an alternative such as forcing, say, supreme asshole ted cruz to pay for medical care for children instead, i will opt for higher taxes every time.

Why would politicians pander to it? Because it's astonishing the majority would even contemplate putting up with such disparity

Click to expand...

so your solution is to tax tax tax till the rich run out of money or move away

and Cruz's hostility to homosexuality really does not mean his tax policy is improper

Glen Contrarian said:

And you completely missed my point - Germany had such a program from the beginning, even through the years of the Weimar Republic and through the Nazi years, through the Cold War, and still has it today now that they've absorbed the poverty-ridden eastern half after the Soviet Union melted down, and became the most powerful economy in Europe.

And they did it all while having those socialist programs you decry so much.

Click to expand...

..and now explain Greece to us.

The answer to the question your post os begging is nto answered by throwing out an example or two, it's answered by looking at what normally happens. That means that the more socialized a nation becomes, the less prosperous it ends up. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are FAR out weighed by the rest.

chromium said:

I was just arguing about billionaires with someone, which your article isn't devoted to. Perhaps i should have clarified. While a 'millionaire' may be able to afford more taxes, i'm not any delusion that his wealth alone can fix the roads, bridges, and deplorable schools in this state

But yes, there is certainly something wrong with inherited wealth, while others struggle to get by

Notably, the article's definition of "working" but excluding inheritance is kind of a joke. Mitt Romney might fall into that category, but he created this wealth for himself by taking advantage of the connections his family had. To suggest he rose from poverty or something is quite misleading. I mean someone could inherit $995,000 and earn $5000 and by that article's standards, they are a "working millionaire"

Click to expand...

That didn't seem to me to be the definition of working at all in the article. But it is beside the point. Why is there something wrong with inheriting wealth? If you have parents are grandparents who worked hard and build up some hugely successful company, and they leave that wealth to you, so what? What act of immorality has been committed?

Glen Contrarian said:

You really don't understand what I mean by infrastructure, do you? It's not just public transportation and schools - per person, those are relatively inexpensive.

Click to expand...

I never said infrastructure was just public transportation and schools. Those were just examples silly.

For the rich, there's the airspace for their jets, the time taken up for their safety by the FAA. There's the taxpayer-funded infrastructure for their yachts, including having the Coast Guard ready to come save them when their yacht's in trouble. There's their houses on the beach, which the taxpayers replace (yes, we do) when a hurricane destroys them. There's the time that they see our senators and representatives face-to-face telling them what they want. There's the fire and police protection for their businesses, the roads where their delivery trucks go.

On top of all that, the very rich normally pay less in taxes percentage-wise as their secretaries do - Warren Buffet said it himself.

You really need to widen your mind, and stop trying to protect the rich - they're not the 'job creators'. We in the middle class are the real job creators, always have been. Think about the big companies out there - how many of them were started by multi-millionaires? Outside the financial sector and perhaps Big Oil, not many. Apple? Started in a garage. So did Microsoft. Goodyear started in a kitchen or some such. The stories of middle-class people making it big are effectively endless.

Click to expand...

The air is not public infrastructure. Airspace would exist without government involved at all. Not all rich people have yachts, and they would be just fine without the coast guard. Taxpayers do not replace their house on the beach. Everyone has access to fire and police protections--not just the rich--and the police seem to be spending a lot more of their time in poorer neighborhoods, so that's a big fail right there. Everyone uses roads, and not all rich people own or use delivery trucks.

Even if everything you said was true, which is not, the rich pay more for all of these things anyway. And you are right. Many great companies were starting by people who weren't rich. And they have every right to keep the money they make, and share that money with their children or whoever they leave it to, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I also find it ironic that you say the stories of middle-class people making it big are endless, and then say the vast majority of people who are rich inherited it. You're contradicting yourself buddy

Nilly said:

Erm, yes he did?

He listed high speed rail in communist China, as well as progression made by Germany/Russia in the early-mid 20th century. Free market does help foster technologiccal progression, as he admitted. However, a free market is not a necessity for progression, as you claimed was fact.

Click to expand...

And those progressions are possible because of economic freedom, as I already pointed out in response to them. As to China, the technologies used for high speed rail were developed as a result of economic freedom, and would be impossible without it. All China is doing is hiring actors on the market to build high speed rail. Sure, it is possible that some socialist regime get's lucky and develops some technology. And it might get even luckier and find that said technology is something people demand. Nobody disputes that. But on the free market, technological progress occurs at a much faster and more efficient pace than it could ever possibly occur otherwise.

Lakryte said:

I never said infrastructure was just public transportation and schools. Those were just examples silly.

The air is not public infrastructure. Airspace would exist without government involved at all.

Click to expand...

Airspace would exist...but how well do you think our airline industry would function if there were no regulation of flight routes, of when planes take off and land? After a few collisions - or crashes caused by a plane flying into another plane's wake - how do you think that would affect the health of our airline industry?

And then there's the National Transportation Safety Board which investigates ALL airplane crashes big or small. Guess who benefits the most from their findings and their regulation of the manufacture and maintenance of airplanes? The rich.

Not all rich people have yachts, and they would be just fine without the coast guard.

Click to expand...

REALLY? This retired sailor suspects that you really don't have a whole lot of experience with being at sea. And it seems that you may not be aware of just how many people with Really Nice Boats that there are. You're in CA, so why don't you head to the coastal cities - say, like Santa Monica where there's hundreds of boats just within one marina. Take away the Coast Guard, and you're suddenly going to find a helluva lot of rich people raising cain and calling their congressmen.

Taxpayers do not replace their house on the beach.

Click to expand...

Um, yeah, we sorta do just that.

Everyone has access to fire and police protections--not just the rich--and the police seem to be spending a lot more of their time in poorer neighborhoods, so that's a big fail right there.

Click to expand...

And who do you think owns the buildings in the poor neighborhoods? Is it the poor? If they did, they probably wouldn't be poor, now would they? No, sir, it's the landlords - many of whom are quite rich - who own the great majority of the buildings in poor neighborhoods.

Everyone uses roads, and not all rich people own or use delivery trucks.

Click to expand...

You really don't know the difference in the damage to our infrastructure that is done by semis, do you?

The weight limit for nearly all interstate highways is 40 tons. According to a government study, one 40-ton truck does as much damage to the road as 9,600 cars. But permits frequently allow vehicles to exceed that amount by two tons in Texas and sometimes as much as 85 tons in Nevada. Some states grant one-time permits that allow trucks to be considerably heavier.

Even if everything you said was true, which is not, the rich pay more for all of these things anyway.

Click to expand...

Actually, everything I said was true - as you can see in the links I gave you above - and the problem is that a lot of these very, very rich people don't pump their money back into our economy, but instead send it overseas into tax shelters in places like the Bahamas or the Cayman Islands so they can hide their money from the IRS. You really should learn to be a bit more cynical about the right's eagerness to "protect the rights of the rich".

And you are right. Many great companies were starting by people who weren't rich. And they have every right to keep the money they make, and share that money with their children or whoever they leave it to, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Click to expand...

Again, the price of admission to live in a first-world nation is to pay the taxes that are necessary for that nation to maintain its status as a first-world nation. YES, we all want to keep whatever we earn - I am a small business owner myself. But just as I look outside my store windows right now, I see the sidewalks, the smoothly-paved street, the street signs, the Post Office across the street, the stoplights (and red-light cameras) at the intersection...all of which make it easier for people to find and park at MY business...and all of which are paid by MY tax dollars.

I also find it ironic that you say the stories of middle-class people making it big are endless, and then say the vast majority of people who are rich inherited it. You're contradicting yourself buddy

Click to expand...

Where did I say that the vast majority of people who are rich inherited it? I don't think I have ever said that in any post anywhere. Maybe you're getting me mixed up with what you read in someone else's posts.

faithful_servant said:

..and now explain Greece to us.

The answer to the question your post os begging is nto answered by throwing out an example or two, it's answered by looking at what normally happens. That means that the more socialized a nation becomes, the less prosperous it ends up. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are FAR out weighed by the rest.

Click to expand...

Problem is, you look at Greece and assume that if it happens to Greece, it's automatically going to happen to all socialized democracies. Gotta be careful using those broad-brush assumptions, guy.

If you've read my posts, you know that I'm a big fan of what I call the 'Goldilocks' way - neither too much, nor too little - in almost everything. This includes capitalism and socialism - neither too much nor too little of both. Greece, on the other hand, did have waaaaay too much socialism, just as many third-world nations have way too much unregulated capitalism (yes, many do). If we have too much socialism like Greece did (and does), our economy will melt down. If we have too much unregulated capitalism, our income inequality will go the way of the worst of the third-world nations and the middle class will shrink to irrelevance. Gotta have both...but in balance. Always look for the balance.

johndylan1 said:

Answer: Thirst for power. All governments are self promoting agencies. Democracies need consent, so governments led by arrogant and narcissistic men / women with huge egos promise benefits to gain consent for the power and adoration they seek.

Click to expand...

Hate to tell you this, guy, but those who are arrogant/narcissistic/egoistic and have a thirst for power are found in ALL forms of government. The difference between democracies and non-democracies is that we CAN vote them out.

mpg said:

It's your thread. The burden of proof is on you.

Click to expand...

Ah. I violated mpg's rules of posting threads because I asked a question (that conservatives have a really hard time answering).

Glen Contrarian said:

Problem is, you look at Greece and assume that if it happens to Greece, it's automatically going to happen to all socialized democracies. Gotta be careful using those broad-brush assumptions, guy.

If you've read my posts, you know that I'm a big fan of what I call the 'Goldilocks' way - neither too much, nor too little - in almost everything. This includes capitalism and socialism - neither too much nor too little of both. Greece, on the other hand, did have waaaaay too much socialism, just as many third-world nations have way too much unregulated capitalism (yes, many do). If we have too much socialism like Greece did (and does), our economy will melt down. If we have too much unregulated capitalism, our income inequality will go the way of the worst of the third-world nations and the middle class will shrink to irrelevance. Gotta have both...but in balance. Always look for the balance.

Click to expand...

I made no assumptions, I just asked for an explanation. If you can use one nation as proof of your perspective, then shouldn't I get the same courtesy??

I agree with your statement about balance, but where do we draw that line?? the problem with socialism is that looks good on a short term basis and over the long term is incredibly destructive. Our current state of welfare is classic example of how a socialistic policy can go from what should have been a small scale application of socialistic policies to one that is threatening the economic stability of this nation. This is why ANY socialistic policy MUST have a very strict limit on it from the get-go. I'd like to see welfare "constitutionalized" with changes to it only happening by way of an amendment and not by way of bureaucratic policies.

mpg said:

Where do you draw the line between big government and small government? Most people consider the US's taxes and spending to be low.

Click to expand...

That's true with personal taxes, but not so much with corporate taxes (though many corporations find ways to avoid paying those taxes).

But to give you your due, you asked a pertinent question - where does one draw the line? I'd have to say that when almost all government workers are paid middle-class wages, it's almost certainly a 'big government'...whereas those governments that can only pay their workers poverty-level wages are small governments. In order for a government to pay middle-class wages, that government has to have enough tax revenue to do so...and as a direct result, the people who work within that government, since they do not need to rely on bribes in order to feed their families, are mostly honest brokers and cannot be easily bribed. YES, some will be dishonest, some will be bribed, but the vast majority won't be.

What follows is that when the well-paid government workers do their jobs, they tend to do it well...which means that those assigned to regulatory agencies are (usually) going to do their jobs properly and hold the corporate sector to what the regulations require. Thus you have the high effective taxes and strong regulation that are part of Big Government...and in such governments throughout the world, the corruption level is relatively low.

And this goes back to what I've said so many times - high taxes are the price of admission to living in a first-world democracy.

German guy said:

My guess is that for a nation to be economically successful, it must be stable and integrated. And in order to get a stable, integrated society, you simply need a certain minimum of social safety nets and/or policies that make sure inequality doesn't grow beyond a certain level.

When inequality gets too big, there is no solidarity between the citizens anymore, they no longer identify with their country and society breaks apart into different factions. You then either get social unrest even to the point of civil war, or you choose an authoritarian government that keeps society together by force and coercion.

But when there is not enough solidarity, there is not enough trust. And without trust, you cannot run a successful economy.

Click to expand...

Well said!

Jack Hays said:

You have it backwards. It is the wealth that enables the public largesse. It is not the public largesse that enables the wealth.

Click to expand...

So why is it, then, that the nations with the largest income inequality gaps tend to have the smallest middle classes?

ernst barkmann said:

the general welfare is for the union as a whole ......not the people.

please point to a clause in the constitution which grants the congress power to makes laws giving people things.


“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”― James Madison

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government― James Madison

Click to expand...

Fortunately for America, the founding fathers included the ability to make laws with the understanding that there might be laws needed in the future that they themselves could not foresee.

For instance, it might be unconstitutional in your view for there to be social security or medicare for the elderly at all...but how would the lives of our elderly be without them? In other words, be careful what you wish for.

Glen Contrarian said:

There are three observations:

(1) ALL first-world democracies are generally socialized, and have big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation, whereas
(2) NO first-world nations at all meet the conservative demands of zero socialism, small government, low taxes, and weak (if any) regulation. And
(3) ALL nations which DO have small governments, low taxes, and weak regulations ARE third-world nations.

If including socialist programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Head Start, free public schools and the like are (as conservative pundits claim) a sure way to the economic dustbin of history, why is it that America (and the British Commonwealth before us) started down this road eighty years ago (FDR's New Deal) and we've been the most successful nations in human history? Is it just an accident or coincidence? Or does the inclusion of such socialist programs actually contribute to a nation's economic health?

Click to expand...

Nobody suggests that there be zero social programs. The constitution laid out structures which are social structures, such as the post office and the examples that you mentioned are recognized by most conservatives, although there is much reform that needs to be done to the programs to eliminate waste and fraud.

This country has historically been more successful than other nations for a number of reasons. Many of those reasons are being assaulted by progressives and our nation is being weakened as a result. Capitalism is the primary reason we have succeeded. The size of our nation is one reason that maintaining a capitalist structure and markets which are as free as possible are reason for our designation as the last super power.

We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Your notion that small government and low taxes equals the third world is just a straw man. Our government should be small as possible to function efficiently, we should eliminate bloat and needless or redundant regulations and tax and spend so that we don't increase our debt.

Glen Contrarian said:

Fortunately for America, the founding fathers included the ability to make laws with the understanding that there might be laws needed in the future that they themselves could not foresee.

For instance, it might be unconstitutional in your view for there to be social security or medicare for the elderly at all...but how would the lives of our elderly be without them? In other words, be careful what you wish for.

Click to expand...

the congress only has the power to make federal law, for the foregoing powers only......of article 1 section 8, and nothing in that article deals with the personal lives of the people.

things which concern themselves with the lifes liberty and property of the people are state powers..not federal powers...federalist 45

Glen Contrarian said:

Airspace would exist...but how well do you think our airline industry would function if there were no regulation of flight routes, of when planes take off and land? After a few collisions - or crashes caused by a plane flying into another plane's wake - how do you think that would affect the health of our airline industry?

Click to expand...

Why do you think those regulations can only exist if government implements them? Are airlines incapable of coordinating with each other? Private air traffic control is just as possible as government air traffic control. And private air traffic control does exist in the U.S. On average, it is safer and cheaper than those run by government. Contract towers, as they are known, cost on average $537,000 a year to operate, compared with $2 million for comparably busy towers staffed by the Federal Aviation Administration, according to the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General. In addition, the contract towers had a "significantly lower number and rate of safety incidents," the report said.

So it looks like we might even be better off if air traffic control were entirely in private hands. No surprise there.

And then there's the National Transportation Safety Board which investigates ALL airplane crashes big or small. Guess who benefits the most from their findings and their regulation of the manufacture and maintenance of airplanes? The rich.

Click to expand...

You think the rich CEOs of Boeing benefit when their planes are investigated by the NTSB? If anything the NTSB benefits your average American who uses a plane. And the NTSB is not public infrastructure. You are really grasping at straws here.

REALLY? This retired sailor suspects that you really don't have a whole lot of experience with being at sea. And it seems that you may not be aware of just how many people with Really Nice Boats that there are.

Click to expand...

There are more rich people than boats, sorry. Your argument that all rich people have yachts is stupid. Second, there are far more cheap non-yacht boats than there are yachts. The coast guard doesn't spend a disproportionate amount of time helping people on yachts. Your argument is total bunk.

Um, yeah, we sorta do just that.

Click to expand...

And a huge number of those houses are not owned by rich people. I wouldn't even say most are. I don't agree with the federal government paying to rebuild anyone's house. But that they do is not an argument for making the rich pay more in taxes, it is an argument against disaster relief from the federal government.

And who do you think owns the buildings in the poor neighborhoods? Is it the poor? If they did, they probably wouldn't be poor, now would they? No, sir, it's the landlords - many of whom are quite rich - who own the great majority of the buildings in poor neighborhoods.

Click to expand...

Oh please. The police serve more than just landlords. And if your apartment is on fire, that is a major problem not just for the landlord but for you. You probably have property in that apartment, and if it burns down you don't have a place to stay. But because you don't own the place, you have a lot less at stake than the landlord to begin with. If you own property and it burns down, you could lose a ton of money. If you are just renting it, you don't lose any money.

You really don't know the difference in the damage to our infrastructure that is done by semis, do you?

The weight limit for nearly all interstate highways is 40 tons. According to a government study, one 40-ton truck does as much damage to the road as 9,600 cars. But permits frequently allow vehicles to exceed that amount by two tons in Texas and sometimes as much as 85 tons in Nevada. Some states grant one-time permits that allow trucks to be considerably heavier.

Click to expand...

Another irrelevant argument. Semis already pay higher gas taxes since they require more gas. And the tax on diesel is higher, and most if not all are fueled by diesel. And the rich that own them already pay a vastly higher amount of taxes than the guy driving the smart car. So your argument, again, is bunk.

What are you even trying to argue? You say the rich use public infrastructure more, and thus they should pay more. Under a flat tax rate they are already paying more. You just want other people to pay for the crap you want, period. That's all you care about. You don't care if the rich made themselves or inherited their money, you just want that money for yourself.