Quantcast
The state of illinois issued lay off notices to hundreds of employees because the sweetened beverage tax was delayed

Forums - Politics Discussion - The state of illinois issued lay off notices to hundreds of employees because the sweetened beverage tax was delayed

Razeak said:
KLAMarine said:

You aren't forced to pay taxes. You could go live out in the wilderness away from the infrastructure paid for by taxes.

People still lose their jobs there.

Govt won't allow that. They find ways to force you. Primarily under threat of some form of violence. You can't even go into the wilderness. You get nailed for tresspassing on federal lands. You get nailed for fishing if you didn't pay the license fee(tax). Lots of stories of the years of people trying to do just what you suggest. Government will find d a way to hammer you if you do. Or you can rot away on a park bench. Taxes are absolutely forced.

I imagine federal lands cost money to maintain as do bodies of water good for fishing so if you're not paying taxes, you're using resources you didn't put some money towards maintaining.

Go to Russia's immense land mass for wilderness.



Around the Network
KLAMarine said:
Razeak said:

Govt won't allow that. They find ways to force you. Primarily under threat of some form of violence. You can't even go into the wilderness. You get nailed for tresspassing on federal lands. You get nailed for fishing if you didn't pay the license fee(tax). Lots of stories of the years of people trying to do just what you suggest. Government will find d a way to hammer you if you do. Or you can rot away on a park bench. Taxes are absolutely forced.

I imagine federal lands cost money to maintain as do bodies of water good for fishing so if you're not paying taxes, you're using resources you didn't put some money towards maintaining.

Go to Russia's immense land mass for wilderness.

Correction: federal lands cost money to secure with illegitimate property claims against the common person. The land maintained itself for billions of years before the "United States of America" existed. The state did not homestead the land so they have no legitimate claim to restrict access to others who might.  But please continue with your insufferable state worship. I wonder, how did people hunt and fish before "The United States of America" came in to being? 



KLAMarine said:
Snoopy said:

The difference is we are forced to pay taxes or we are thrown in the government's cage.

You aren't forced to pay taxes. You could go live out in the wilderness away from the infrastructure paid for by taxes.

Uh, this just isn't true. 

They will find a way to get their money.



Hahahahahahahahah!!! Good! That is what you get when you have lefitists who love to overspend in power. My dear state of CT is the next one to go in the same hole!!



sc94597 said:
KLAMarine said:

I imagine federal lands cost money to maintain as do bodies of water good for fishing so if you're not paying taxes, you're using resources you didn't put some money towards maintaining.

Go to Russia's immense land mass for wilderness.

Correction: federal lands cost money to secure with illegitimate property claims against the common person. The land maintained itself for billions of years before the "United States of America" existed. The state did not homestead the land so they have no legitimate claim to restrict access to others who might.  But please continue with your insufferable state worship.

If in fact federal land maintenance does not cost anything, I stand corrected. I must ask then are there examples of people living in "the wilderness" that incurred the wrath of the authorities?

sc94597 said:

I wonder, how did people hunt and fish before "The United States of America" came in to being? 

With no regard to how their activities might impact the environment? Not that it mattered then as much as it does now: the US today hosts hundreds of millions of people, many more than what I figure there was before the 1770s.

outlawauron said:
KLAMarine said:

You aren't forced to pay taxes. You could go live out in the wilderness away from the infrastructure paid for by taxes.

Uh, this just isn't true. 

They will find a way to get their money.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think this video had much, if anything, to do with taxes.



Around the Network

Keep the government small, I say.



King sugar is back in business!



KLAMarine said:
sc94597 said:

I wonder, how did people hunt and fish before "The United States of America" came in to being? 

With no regard to how their activities might impact the environment? Not that it mattered then as much as it does now: the US today hosts hundreds of millions of people, many more than what I figure there was before the 1770s.

Proportionally the number of people with intentions to hunt and fish are smaller than they were then, and the available land is much greater. This is what the United States looked like in 1790. 

 

This is where the federal government claims land. 



sc94597 said:
KLAMarine said:

With no regard to how their activities might impact the environment? Not that it mattered then as much as it does now: the US today hosts hundreds of millions of people, many more than what I figure there was before the 1770s.

Proportionally the number of people with intentions to hunt and fish are smaller than they were then, and the available land is much greater. This is what the United States looked like in 1790. 

Yes and according to http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h986.html and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_Census , the population in 1790 was a little under four million. Today it's over 300 million and population density has only climbed despite the growth of the US's surface area which stopped after Hawaii joined our Union in 1959.

With that in mind, you state "Proportionally the number of people with intentions to hunt and fish are smaller than they were then" and I must ask for raw numbers. 100% of 1790's US population is a little under four million, obviously. 1% of today's population is very close to 1790's 100% and 2% of today's exceeds 1790's total population.

sc94597 said:

This is where the federal government claims land. 

That's a lot of white space.



KLAMarine said:

Yes and according to http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h986.html and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_Census , the population in 1790 was a little under four million. Today it's over 300 million and population density has only climbed despite the growth of the US's surface area which stopped after Hawaii joined our Union in 1959.

With that in mind, you state "Proportionally the number of people with intentions to hunt and fish are smaller than they were then" and I must ask for raw numbers. 100% of 1790's US population is a little under four million, obviously. 1% of today's population is very close to 1790's 100% and 2% of today's exceeds 1790's total population.


That's a lot of white space.

15.7 million Americans hunted in 2013, in a country that is 4.7 times larger (by area) than in 1790. Furthermore, the number who hunted more than once per year is likely much smaller than the number who would've in 1790, because hunting was for many -- required to survive back then. 

To remain on topic, though, consider that the number of people who would love to live in the woods away from the greater society is very infinitessimal, and so would be their environmental impact. 

Notice that almost the whole west is red. The only reason the U.S government doesn't claim the east is because the people there had already homesteaded it.