Eric Takabayashi projected away to his heart's content and wrote:
> 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.

I don't think it would be possible to have a discussion about the same
thing with you on most subjects. Too many underlying currents and tangents.

> You say we should not pay for solo yachtsmen, or they should pay for their own
> rescues, was it? 

A portion at least, enough to discourage the foolhardy from setting out.
Not too much to discourage a seasoned sailor from taking a rational
risk. I don't think it would be possible to even calculate full cost
recovery, nor would it necessarily be rational to do so. With sailing of
course, the other problem is that of the obligation of all vessels to go
to the aid of any other vessel in distress. While it would not be
unreasonable for say, the navy of Bangladesh (?) to be compensated in
full for the cost of rescuing an Australian round-the-world yachtsman, I
think it would be unreasonable to charge a Bangladeshi fishing boat for
the full cost of a rescue by a expensive Australian guided missile
frigate. And so on and so forth.

> [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.]

As a card carrying died in the wool knee jerk liberal socialist grandson
of a terrorist I sing the praises "on average" of socialised medicine on
a day by day basis.

>>>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

Why do you think it needs to be brought into balance? As a fiscal
instrument monetary policy is more powerful from a macroeconomic
management point of view. Japan could leave its budget deficit in the
3%-12% range of GDP for several decades without "on average" too many
major traumas. A nation is not a household.

>>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.

"Bitching" to me implies a normative statement. One persons "waste" is
anothers "necessity". In the long run there isn't much worth "bitching"
about.

>>>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. 

You are projecting again. As much as I can imagine you sitting there
pounding the keyboard furiously, assuming that what you think someone is
likely to think is by definition what they actually think, it just isn't
worth the time engaging.

The following is all I have to say really. It is simply not possible in
a civilised and cooperative society for everybody and everything to pay
their/its own way all of the time. I may well end up paying more taxes
than I end up consuming in public  - if so, so be it. I might be blinded
and crippled in a car accident tommorrow, and unable to work again - if
so, naturally I'd like to still be able to live as fulfilling and
dignified a life as possible, which would be impossible (IMO) without a
comprehensive publicly financed or underwritten safety net. So you won't
hear me whinging (austrian for bitching) about the cost of converting
say, a subway station into one that is barrier free (even though I hope
I'll never use it), just as I don't complain about the lovely new wangan
expressways that I do use. http://tinyurl.com/3gwwz
You will of course hear me having a good old fashioned whinge about
other things, but such is my station in life as we know it.

>>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.

As far as I'm concerned, a token payment would be more than sufficient.
NGOs have enough liability costs as is, without further increases. And
the real impact of charging full cost for individuals like the 3 idiots
above, would simply be to increase the costs of properly organized NGOs
instead.


-- 
"Oh don't give me none more of that Old Janx Spirit/ No, don't you give
me none more of that Old Janx Spirit/ For my head will fly, my tongue
will lie, my eyes will fry and I may die/ Won't you pour me one more of
that sinful Old Janx Spirit"