Why being poor is so expensive

@averagejoe1 said
This may be the problem this Shallowblue person is having as well, thus his stupid response. What is nick, is that part of forum vernacular?

I assume nick = nickname. I have no idea who someone thinks I am, but I'm not that person. I'm just me. I don't have multiple accounts on here.

@kevcvs57 said
Yeah this is the thing though, if you redistribute the pie better it will ipso facto get bigger.

This does not make sense. Like, define redistribute the pie. Like, why not just say 'distribute' the pie. What is the 're'? Either way, It doesn't make sense. I mean, who gives? who takes?

@creastalia said
@AverageJoe1
No, not a trick question. What I am asking is, on a -moral- level, is the tax I'm paying something that I -owe-, in this scenario?

If a tax is due, levied on you by law, you must obey the law, and pay the tax. Are you putting us on. And yes, the tax is for roads, police and supporting losers. Then what is left over is for hospitals and schools.

@creastalia said
Really interesting stuff! Thanks for that. So it's like if I drive on a road that other people's tax dollars have contributed to, then there's an implied social contract because I'm choosing a course of action where I'm both giving & receiving a valuable consideration, is that it? I'm choosing to drive on the road and to pay tax. If I don't want to pay tax, I can avoid the ...[text shortened]... l contract by not driving on the road or in any other way using society's collective infrastructure.

He's all yours, Marauder. I smell a rat. 😕

@averagejoe1 said
He's all yours, Marauder. I smell a rat. 😕

I'm female. I have no idea why you're being so paranoid about me. All I'm trying to do is express my ideas in polite language.

@averagejoe1 said
If a tax is due, levied on you by law, you must obey the law, and pay the tax. Are you putting us on. And yes, the tax is for roads, police and supporting losers. Then what is left over is for hospitals and schools.

You've interpreted my comments on a bit of a different angle to how I intended them. There was a libertarian perspective earlier in the thread that questioned the legitimacy of taxes being owed as part of a social contract. That's why I wanted to pick apart whether taxes are genuinely "owed" on a moral level or whether they are government coercion, and so forth. If I'm driving on a road that other people's tax dollars have contributed to, do I -- on a -moral- level, not just a legal one -- have an obligation to pay my share of those taxes as well? Does my use of society's collective infrastructure create a -moral- obligation to pay my share of taxes in support of it?

@creastalia said
You've interpreted my comments on a bit of a different angle to how I intended them. There was a libertarian perspective earlier in the thread that questioned the legitimacy of taxes being owed as part of a social contract. That's why I wanted to pick apart whether taxes are genuinely "owed" on a moral level or whether they are government coercion, and so forth. If I'm dr ...[text shortened]... y's collective infrastructure create a -moral- obligation to pay my share of taxes in support of it?

Taxes are levied by authorities elected by citizens. They all agree that to live among/within this society, its inhabitants must follow their laws. Nothing moral about it. If one really digs into this here, they will utter 'is it the christian thing to do', or some such. It is neither moral nor christian. It is the law.
To bring up social contract is a bit superfluous, but I guess one could say a citizen has an express or even implied contract with the lawmakers, the township. I don't know what the word social has to do with it, since the very existence of all these people is inherently social.

To your question, the taxes are owed. of course, but moral and coercion do not apply. The taxes built a road because the town voted to do so, they don't care if you use it or not.

@no1marauder said
You're wrong of course:

"An implied contract is a non-verbal and unwritten – yet still legally binding – contract that exists based on the behavior of the parties involved or on a set of circumstances."

"The distinguishing feature of an implied contract is that while there is no exchange of words – either orally or in writing – that specifies the agreement, it can b ...[text shortened]... ://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/valuation/implied-contract/

How embarrassing for you.

No1 Miss Representor: "How embarrassing for you."

Soothfast calls me a child then proceeds to act like a child.
ATY starts his post with "Don't be dense..." then proceeds to be dense.
kev,...well, let's not go there.
Then No.1 says I should be embarrassed when actually...

Not all implied contracts are equal For eg you walk into a shop load your trolley and wheel it straight past the check out to your car. Agreed, there's been no contract defined stating that you must pay for the goods. But that does not mean you can make up a 'implied contract' with dream feeling terms that are different for everyone. In the event of a dispute the terms of the contract must be defined, leaving No1 Miss Representor in a kind of: Which came first the chicken or the egg type dilemma,, or a more apt analogy, No1 is embarrassingly and unknowingly a dog chasing his own tail.

Here's what a social contract might look like, let it be noted I do not agree to the terms.

SOCIAL CONTRACT
between an individual and the United States Government

WHEREAS I wish to reside on the North American continent, and

WHEREAS the United States Government controls the area of the continent on which I wish to reside, and

WHEREAS tacit or implied contracts are vague and therefore unenforceable,

I agree to the following terms:

SECTION 1: I will surrender a percentage of my property to the Government. The actual percentage will be determined by the Government and will be subject to change at any time. The amount to be surrendered may be based on my income, the value of my pro- perty, the value of my purchases, or any other criteria the Government chooses. To aid the Government in determining the percentage, I will apply for a Government identification number that I will use in all my major financial transactions.

SECTION 2: Should the Government demand it, I will surrender my liberty for a period of time determined by the government and typically no shorter than two years. During that time, I will serve the Government in any way it chooses, including military service in which I may be called upon to sacrifice my life.

SECTION 3: I will limit my behavior as demanded by the govern- ment. I will consume only those drugs permitted by the Govern- ment. I will limit my sexual activities to those permitted by the Government. I will forsake religious beliefs that conflict with the Government's determination of propriety. More limits may be imposed at any time.

SECTION 4: In consideration for the above, the Government will permit me to find employment, subject to limits that will be determined by the Government. These limits may restrict my choice of career or the wages I may accept.

SECTION 5: The Government will permit me to reside in the area of North America which it controls. Also, the Government will permit me to speak freely, subject to limits determined by the Government's Congress and Supreme Court.

SECTION 6: The Government will attempt to protect my life and my claim to the property it has allowed me to keep. I agree not to hold the Government liable if it fails to protect me or my property.

SECTION 7: The Government will offer various services to me. The nature and extent of these services will be determined by the Government and are subject to change at any time.

SECTION 8: The Government will determine whether I may vote for certain Government officials. The influence of my vote will vary inversely with the number of voters, and I understand that it typically will be minuscule. I agree not to hold any elected Government officials liable for acting against my best interests or for breaking promises, even if those promises motivated me to vote for them.

SECTION 9: I agree that the Government may hold me fully liable if I fail to abide by the above terms. In that event, the Government may confiscate any property that I have not previously surrendered to it, and may imprison me for a period of time to be determined by the Government. I also agree that the Government may alter the terms of this contract at any time without my permission.

---------------------------------- ---------------

signature date

Copyright 1989 by Robert E. Alexander.

May be distributed freely.

@creastalia said
I'm female. I have no idea why you're being so paranoid about me. All I'm trying to do is express my ideas in polite language.

There’s plenty of toxic white masculinity here. You’ll need a tough skin if you want to hang out here.

@no1marauder said
That you found a copy paste who's author makes the same error as you did i.e. that tacit or implied contracts are unenforceable - doesn't make it any less of an error.

Not all tacit and implied contracts No1, N O T ___ A L L. And you've of course ignored all the other terms and conditions.

You can't just make something up and say this is a tacit and implied contract now and it majically becomes an enforceable contract. There are reasons for 'tacit and implied' contracts, there are criteria for them.

@wajoma said
Not all tacit and implied contracts No1, N O T ___ A L L. And you've of course ignored all the other terms and conditions.

You can't just make something up and say this is a tacit and implied contract now and it majically becomes an enforceable contract. There are reasons for 'tacit and implied' contracts, there are criteria for them.

The criteria given in the Corporate Finance Institute link I already provided fit like a glove into Locke's concept of a Social Contract.

@no1marauder said
The criteria given in the Corporate Finance Institute link I already provided fit like a glove into Locke's concept of a Social Contract.

No it doesn't for three reasons:

1/ In the event of a dispute the terms and conditions have to be specified i.e. the contract is no longer implied or tacit, it is defined. (AKA the chasing the tail argument.)

2/ I assume you're hanging your entire argument on this: "A general example is when one party accepts some benefit from another party, knowing that the providing party expects to be paid for the provided benefit." Yet there are plenty of things that goobermint supplies which I do not accept and are not benefits e.g NZ guvamint's die while you wait health system, or the racist separatist Ministry of Maori Affairs, We better not get started on this one, the list is long and everyone has a list, making any attempt at shoe-horning a foot into a glove futile.

3/ That you found a copy paste which you repeatedly mis-represent to mean all tacit and implied contracts are enforceable. They're not, you haven't discovered some new type of contract that throws out hundreds of years of actual contract law.

The conditions of the social contract when defined are unacceptable by all but the most lunatic devout state worshippers

@wajoma said
No it doesn't for three reasons:

1/ In the event of a dispute the terms and conditions have to be specified i.e. the contract is no longer implied or tacit, it is defined. (AKA the chasing the tail argument.)

2/ I assume you're hanging your entire argument on this: [i]"A general example is when one party accepts some benefit from another party, knowing that the providing ...[text shortened]... e social contract when defined are unacceptable by all but the most lunatic devout state worshippers

Actually it does and your whining to the contrary doesn't alter real contract law.

The Social Contract as envisioned by Locke is fairly straightforward; one consents to the mutual aid and protection of a society because otherwise one's Natural Rights are insecure. Of course, you do not forfeit those rights but neither do you retain the power to do whatever you please.

You do have a voice in the decisions made by the society but not the veto you ridiculously claim for every individual.