(February 18, 2013 at 11:09 am)Tiberius Wrote: Whilst I agree with your attitude, I think some of the examples you gave are silly. Ripping up pavements would cost the taxpayer yet more money.
A streets pavement is ruined after one year and constantly has to be repaved, if you took my statement word for word then it`s your own fault since I was clearly being sarcastic.
Quote:Police not responding to calls would result in a "free-for-all" area of crime, where innocent people could get punished as a result. I'm thinking about Facebook employees who do pay taxes, etc. Same goes for "law isn't enforced if a murder occurs".
sarcasm not understood again
Quote:Removing protection from fire endangers other people. If I don't pay taxes, but my house catches fire, it endangers the houses and people around it. Why should other people be put at risk?
sarcasm not understood again
Quote:Surely rather than just remove these services, it would be easier to enforce tax law? Close the loopholes; prosecute / fine people who don't pay the correct amount. Simple.
Why not? Sure it is required to reform taxcodes to make them more resistant to crime.
But why not punish people who would happily take goverment provided services by denying them these services.
After all, they would be aware of those consequences since they underfunded these very services themselves
