Declan Murphy wrote:

> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>
> > Ryan Ginstrom wrote:
> >>If you count government debt as something that taxpayers pay (they certainly
> >>do, unless the government goes out of business), then on average everyone
> >>must pay their way by definition.
> >
> > We are not talking about average.
>
> We aren't? You aren't? It would appear to me that Ryan is.

Then "we" need to talk about the same thing, like "irresponsible people", or even
just the first three Japanese former hostages.

You say we should not pay for solo yachtsmen, or they should pay for their own
rescues, was it? Where should we draw the line at who not to pay for or who should
pay for the nuisance they cause themselves or others? How about the 90,000 smokers
a year the Japanese government claims develop cancer (amazingly low figure - in the
US, the number is more like 400,000 DEATHS)? Should we pay the medical expenses of
people who knowingly and freely live in urban areas, simply breathing the air, and
drinking the tap water despite the known risks of living in urban areas? [I forgot
to mention the water last night - I used to know the assistant director of the
private 600 bed hospital in my neighborhood. His specialty was liver cancer and its
causes, and he informed me that rates are especially high in this region. I asked
him what the cause was. Hepatitis G (or H, yes, it was some letter variety I'd
never known existed), he said. How did people get it, I asked. The drinking water,
was the reply.]

[Correction: gene drugs do not cost up to 250,000 USD per MONTH. Only 250,000 USD
per year, according to the Baltimore Sun. I thank God for public hospitals and
national insurance in this country, as well as those who earn and spend more, who
help me and my family when in need.]

> > But "on average", the national debt of 700,000,000,000,000 yen and annual
> > revenue shortfalls of about 40% (less than 46 trillion in revenues vs 82
> > trillion in expenditure for 2004) mean that people in Japan are not paying
> > enough in taxes.
>
> No it doesn't.

Really? So how should the budget be brought into balance from about 40% of debt,
without cutting off the elderly or non-Tokyo prefectures, or neglecting the
existing public debt, which themselves account for about two thirds of all
spending? Most people I talk to express surprise at how relatively little public
works costs, and understand that even never building another bridge, highway or
dam, and letting every existing thing in Japan fall into ruin, cutting off much of
transport or even daily commutes, would not save the budget or bring down the 700
trillion yen debt. Getting out of Iraq, getting rid of the SDF and handing the US
the bill (again) won't do it, either.

> It means that the public and private sectors are
> currently borrowing to cover the gap between planned expenditures and
> actual revenues at a rate slightly higher than say, 15 years ago (and
> significantly lower than say 60 years ago, as a percentage of GNP). Note
> for Eric, this is in economic parlance a positive statement, not a
> normative one. Save the rant.

I'm not the one bitching about wasting "my" tax money on people who need help. I
know it's not "my" money. When I bitch about taxes, I bitch about the waste of
"tax" money.

> > I am well aware that companies and those who get or spend money are paying for
> > me, my part timer wife, and my unemployed children. I appreciate it. I can't
> > pay a million yen a year for school for each of my kids, or to build and pave
> > the road to work or to build JR lines, highways and airports I sometimes use.
>
> But you are also paying for the "JR lines, highways and airports" and
> (of far greater numerative value) a myriad of other publicly funded
> goods, services (whether they are in other parts of the country etc, or
> in Fukuyama) and transfer payments that you will never use or be the
> beneficiary of,

No, I'm not one one of the people who arrogantly believes I am paying enough to
cover even my own current needs or those of my family, much less for other people
or till we all die. In my entire life, I will never be able to pay off what I owe
the respective countries for even just the public education of myself, my wife, or
my two children. If I had about 20 million yen handy to pay for my children (at
current rates, never mind 15 years in the future), or were required to pay for it
myself instead of other taxpayers, I'd send them to private school cheaper, maybe
460,000 yen a year, each, locally, and use the rest to pay for a nicer house or
car. And since I do not live in the US and do not make over 80,000 USD per year to
lose any of my exemptions, I guess I will never pay off any of my debt to the US,
and highly appreciate the fact that other people do and did.

If for educational purposes, you'd care to demonstrate how what you pay is indeed
enough to cover the lifelong needs of yourself or the family you have or will have,
Mr. I Have Three Jobs And Am The President Of Two Companies, you are welcome to
try. No one I have ever encountered in real life, including doctors or millionaire
presidents or owners of companies (despite it probably being true in their uncommon
cases) wants to when people start complaining about taxes. Like I said, they shut
up when informed how much a "free" education costs, or when reminded how what they
may receive as seniors is not "their" money.

> hence the importance of averages, and of the combined
> role of direct and indirect taxation. Considering income tax alone is
> meaningless even in the context that you provided.

Tell it to the people who started this thread and those who bitch like them, much
less the people I know who bitch about "their" money and its alleged misuses.
According to your logic, those former hostages, or their employed relatives, paid
"their own way", too.

--
If Gibson decides to make his next film about Rasputin or that Utah hiker who had
to cut off his arm after it got trapped under a boulder, it might be time for him
to seek professional help.

- Jon Niccum, Entertainment Editor

http://www.mercycorps.org/
http://www.mercycorps.org/items/1398/
http://www.mercycorps.org/mercykits.php

Mercy Corps' goal in Iraq is to work with conflict-affected communities to meet
their urgent needs while also providing a firm foundation for the future
development of economic opportunities and civil society.

Efficiency
Over 92% of our resources go directly to humanitarian programs.

Excellence
Worth Magazine named Mercy Corps one of America's best charities.

High-Value
Every dollar you give helps us secure $12.71 in donated food and other supplies.