KLAMarine said: outlawauron said: 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.

Well, I took your statement to be a general one amount money being paid to the government. He was being evicted from his home on his property because he didn't have government utilities (water, electricity, heat, etc). That's due to $$, and not anything else.

Government logic at its finest:

Hey guys, we really need this new tax to pay for all these non-essential government workers, but since the tax has been delayed we can now fire these guys while still screwing over our constituents by implementing the unnecessary new tax anyway!

outlawauron said: KLAMarine said: Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think this video had much, if anything, to do with taxes. Well, I took your statement to be a general one amount money being paid to the government. He was being evicted from his home on his property because he didn't have government utilities (water, electricity, heat, etc). That's due to $$, and not anything else.

Worth a read: http://www.fox10tv.com/story/29326010/city-responds-to-couple-trying-to-live-off-the-grid

KLAMarine said: outlawauron said: Well, I took your statement to be a general one amount money being paid to the government. He was being evicted from his home on his property because he didn't have government utilities (water, electricity, heat, etc). That's due to $$, and not anything else. Worth a read: http://www.fox10tv.com/story/29326010/city-responds-to-couple-trying-to-live-off-the-grid

 

Did you read your article? It clearly says they are required to get permits, in other words give us money (taxes) and we will let you live the way we say you can. Sounds like pay up, do what we think is best for you and its all good. Not being allowed to live in a trailer is a bad excuse, they simply want to control what he can and can't do, but will allow it if he ponies up cash. Besides his trailer looks nice, not run down. He has what he needs, but they feel he needs to listen to their rules for the benifit of others that he isnt actually effecting. I don't buy it. How much are the permits? who gets to approve them? he isn't stealing city resources.

thranx said: KLAMarine said: Worth a read: http://www.fox10tv.com/story/29326010/city-responds-to-couple-trying-to-live-off-the-grid Did you read your article? It clearly says they are required to get permits, in other words give us money (taxes) and we will let you live the way we say you can. Sounds like pay up, do what we think is best for you and its all good. Not being allowed to live in a trailer is a bad excuse, they simply want to control what he can and can't do, but will allow it if he ponies up cash. Besides his trailer looks nice, not run down. He has what he needs, but they feel he needs to listen to their rules for the benifit of others that he isnt actually effecting. I don't buy it. How much are the permits? who gets to approve them? he isn't stealing city resources.

Yes, I read the article. Did something I posted suggest that I didn't?

sc94597 said: 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.

Considering that your claim had been "Proportionally the number of people with intentions to hunt and fish are smaller than they were then", I think it is pretty disingenuous to claim the number 15.7m is the relevant one.  (That appears to me to be the figure for hunting alone; fishing is more than 44 million as indicated by both the graph and the text of the article.) 

Final-Fan said: Considering that your claim had been "Proportionally the number of people with intentions to hunt and fish are smaller than they were then", I think it is pretty disingenuous to claim the number 15.7m is the relevant one.  (That appears to me to be the figure for hunting alone; fishing is more than 44 million as indicated by both the graph and the text of the article.)

Considering I said proportionally I stand by it. More people out of the total population likely fished in their daily lives in 1790 than 2017, because the 1790 population was almost 99% agrarian and rural. 

If I was talking about absolute numbers, that would be a different matter. 

sc94597 said: Final-Fan said: Considering that your claim had been "Proportionally the number of people with intentions to hunt and fish are smaller than they were then", I think it is pretty disingenuous to claim the number 15.7m is the relevant one.  (That appears to me to be the figure for hunting alone; fishing is more than 44 million as indicated by both the graph and the text of the article.)  Considering I said proportionally I stand by it. More people out of the total population likely fished in their daily lives in 1790 than 2017, because the 1790 population was almost 99% agrarian and rural.  If I was talking about absolute numbers, that would be a different matter.

That doesn't address nor explain the fact that you clearly used the wrong number, but I'll move on. 

In that case, since the only realistic comparion in terms of environmental impact (the context in which these figures were used) compares the number of people to the area of land on which they lived in each time period, and not percentage of total population engaged in that activity then and now, how do you explain your misinterpretation? 

Final-Fan said: sc94597 said: Considering I said proportionally I stand by it. More people out of the total population likely fished in their daily lives in 1790 than 2017, because the 1790 population was almost 99% agrarian and rural.  If I was talking about absolute numbers, that would be a different matter.  That doesn't address nor explain the fact that you clearly used the wrong number, but I'll move on.  In that case, since the only realistic comparion in terms of environmental impact (the context in which these figures were used) compares the number of people to the area of land on which they lived in each time period, and not percentage of total population engaged in that activity then and now, how do you explain your misinterpretation?

I supported one part of my statement with regards to hunting, and didn't feel like supporting the other part because it was off-topic from the original discussion. Since you inquired, I supported the other part of my statement. The effects of hunting and fishing are different. I didn't use any wrong number. I just supported one portion of my statement. 

The number of people who hunt or fish, and the area of a particular region are not the only variables. They just happened to be sufficient variables to justify that the burden of hunting is not necessarily more today than it was in 1790. How often people hunt and fish is also important. This can be gleaned from considering how much people depended on hunting and fishing in a particular period of time. In 1790, a higher percentage of the population required fishing and hunting for subsistence. Today, such activities are more often recreational, and therefore it can be assumed that it happens less often per hunter/fisher and in limited portions. A lot of fishing doesn't even entail taking the fish home. They are thrown back into the lake, river, or ocean. 

To support my point, suppose that the average number of fishermen today take home 10 fish/year. Suppose that in 1790 the average number of fish taken home per year, per person, was 52 fish (once per week.) 

So 44.7million fishermen * 10 fish/year/fisherman * 1 year = 447,000,000 fish. 

Compare that to 4 million * 50 fish/year/person * 1 year = 200,000,000 fish. 

Then we can make the hand-wavey area comparison to discover that the effect of 4 million people fishing 50 fish/year on average in a much smaller area is much larger than 33 million people fishing 10 fish/year on average in a much larger area. 

spurgeonryan said: VAMatt said: All governments waste money. That's the only thing they're good at. So, if you want them to stop wasting tax money, you're going to need to abolish government. But it on next years ballot and lets see what happens.

There won't be a ballot, ballots are paid for by taxes that you guys seem to think are illegitimate