Booger Hut Taxes

Booger Hut Taxes

Catch up on the ongoing saga of the naked hermit in the woods by clicking here.

└ Tags: ,

Discussion (9)¬

  1. Vesuvius says:

    Has the hermit been hit with a view tax yet?

  2. Taxinator says:

    Eeewww. That’s disgusting.

  3. Ron Helwig says:

    Yes, taxes are disgusting.

  4. susan 28 says:

    yes, even if you are totally selfv sufficient, never leave your property, grow your own food and have your own well, and are willing to provide your own fire service (and agree to be held accountable if you don’t contain fire on your property), you get taxed just for “existing”.

    view tax? you mean because he’s looking up her skirt? hey at least there’s some value added there :)

  5. Dale says:

    “Has the hermit been hit with a view tax yet?”

    I see you didn’t follow the link. ;)

  6. Andrew says:

    “yes, even if you are totally selfv sufficient, never leave your property, grow your own food and have your own well, and are willing to provide your own fire service (and agree to be held accountable if you don’t contain fire on your property), you get taxed just for “existing”.”

    The government’s money monopoly and property tax scheme is the biggest corporate welfare scam in existence. It’s designed to force people to slave away for capitalist property owners. It’s a very serious issue, but it never hurts to address serious issues humorously. Another good one, Dale. :)

  7. Agape says:

    Andrew, I mostly get your meaning, I think, but look up a few definitions of how capitalism and free markets are supposed to be defined. The setup is less like capitalism and more like mercantilism. Government takes from, well, just about everybody, taxes companies selectively, subsidizes the biggest players in the industry, and prevents both foreign and domestic competition from gaining a foothold. The phrase “too big to fail” would be incomprehensible to a real capitalist. It’s entirely intelligible to a mercantilist, however. Government essentially creates a privileged merchant class, and a massive serf class. In a free market there would likely be regular turnover of any business, many many smaller businesses, and an almost incomprehensibly larger number of entrepreneurs constantly testing each market for a more efficient and effective and desirable products and services. Anyone trying to talk about using force to ensure workers own the means of production would be looked at funny, because the concept that anyone who wants to do so doesn’t already would be foreign. Products and services would be cheaper, usually a lot cheaper, in relation to incomes. Cries of being uninsured would be almost nonexistent. Not because everyone would be insured, but because health care is currently inflated in cost by many multiples. Education would be, as it was in the past, available going all the way down to charitably run “homeschooling” co-ops and all the way up to whatever someone wants to pay for. And the fact that anyone who doesn’t perform as an educator would be fired in short order ensures quality. Did you know that before public education, the US had 98% literacy among the surveyed population? The census only measured literacy among white males, admittedly, but white women seemed to be similarly entirely voluntarily educated and blacks and asians were being governmentally restricted in many cases. Historically, the major impediment to the masses becoming educated and comparatively wealthy is government itself.

    This rant has been brought to you by my total disgust with people referring to what we have as “capitalist”, “capitalism”, “free markets”, “laissez-faire”, or any other related term.

    Susan, one of the valuation elements figured in New Hampshire property assessment is how good the view is from any house on the property. Since how pretty the surroundings are is a significant element in how much it’s worth, and property taxes are figured based on that assessment value, it essentially taxes being able to look out the window at non-ugly surroundings. It’s totally subjective, arbitrarily added to said assessments. That’s why it’s something of a cruel governmental joke, just one more thing added on to burdens the state imposes at its whim.

  8. Andrew says:

    “Anyone trying to talk about using force to ensure workers own the means of production…”

    I’m not sure whether or not you’re attributing this idea to me, but if you are, you have misunderstood me. I don’t think that workers need to use force to ensure the means of production, I think that in a stateless society, this type of arrangement is likely to naturally occur. Private ownership of the means of production is unfair because it allows owners to exploit the labor of workers. In a society without government, workers will find it much easier to organize and boycott employers, so unfair labor practices will quickly disappear. Workers will soon realize that employers are superfluous and begin creating arrangements based on workers self-management. I’m sure that private ownership will still exist, but only to a very small degree.

  9. Blake says:

    Hahahaha, great job dale, as usual :-P

Comment¬

Powered by sweetCaptcha