🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 16:03:05 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:18:45 -0500, Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2018-02-09, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>>>>>> <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 08/02/2018 11:12, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Now possibly taxes might in some way not be a debt, but they look
>>>>>>>>> like one to me.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Taxation is a protection racket promoted by those who ride
>>>>>>>> its gravy train.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Taxation is a way of funding common services that benefit "all". (FSVO
>>>>>>> "all")
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hey, it's simple civics but I see you have at least 2 cynical replies
>>>>>> so far.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>> That is supposed to be the theory. I agree that a lot is skimmed off, and a
>>>>> lot more goes to pay for stuff I may not agree with, but without taxes to
>>>>> pay for roads, bridges, etc. we'd be in a real mess.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting example, given that it is entirely possible to operate toll
>>>> roads and bridges, and even the State does that.
>>>>
>>>> A much better example would be defence.
>>>
>>>How would taking down fences help???
>>>
>>>(Yes, I know, Britisher.)
>>>
>>>Another good example, taking care of old people, disabled, that are not able
>>>to take care of themselves.
>>>
>>>The US roads that go interstate are part of the federal system, as they
>>>should be. 
>>
>> They are built and paid for by the states in which they are located.
>> The only control the Federal government has over them is that the Feds
>> can withhold a payment if they are not constructed and maintained to a
>> certain standard.  Essentially the states are bribed to cooperate.
>
>I'm having trouble understanding the Wikipedia comment on the issue:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#Financing
>
>  The federal contribution comes overwhelmingly from motor vehicle and
>  fuel taxes (93.5 percent in 2007), and it makes up about 60 percent of
>  the contributions by the states.
>
>Does that mean the feds pay 60 percent of the money the states spend?

It means that some character who who edited the page on May 12, 2012
to "put in clarifications" should have taken an English course before
doing so.

Prior to the "clarification" that sentence was: "The federal
contribution is overwhelmingly from motor vehicle and fuel taxes
(93.5% in 2007), as is about 60% of the state contribution."

Afterwards it was: "The Federal contribution comes overwhelmingly from
motor vehicle and fuel taxes (93.5% in 2007), and it makes up about 60
percent of the contributions by the States."

It now reads "The federal contribution comes overwhelmingly from motor
vehicle and fuel taxes (93.5 percent in 2007), as does about 60
percent of the state contribution."

When you read wiki, if something doesn't make any sense note that
there are tabs at the top of the page for "Talk" and "View History".
Sometimes something that doesn't make sense is the result of a
previous botched edit--you may be able to find that, find out what it
was supposed to say, and fix it.  Other times there will be in the
Talk section a discussion of the issue and why it reads the way it
does.

People seem to have this idea that Wiki is an encyclopedia where the
worlds experts are sought out and persuaded to give their opinions.
It's not, it's a lot like USENET where any idiot can make changes (one
of the edits I noted added to the page we are discussing "I like
chicken".  I didn't follow that one to see how long it took for
someone to notice and remove it.)