Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on February 20, 2017, 10:40:55 AM
-
So Bill Gates wants robots to pay taxes, same as the human workers they replace. Interesting premise. The closest analog for me is Internet sales taxes. More and more states are forcing the collection of state sales taxes for interstate sales.
Certainly there will be a hit to federal and state taxe revenue as businesses shift more and more to robots. I'm actually wondering if they'll put up much of a fight on this, since in many cases (e.g., fast food) a single kiosk or robot can probably replace five people, so those businesses might not mind their robot workers being taxed, since the tax the business would now pay (versus the organic workers paying them) are probably a good deal less than benefits, insurance, etc.
-
When they become obsolete, will the robots become eligible for Robot Medicare and Social Security?
-
So Bill Gates wants robots to pay taxes, same as the human workers they replace.
Define "robot." What about the spreadsheets that replace millions of people doing math with pencil and paper nationwide? The oven timers that replace servants to get dinner out before it burns? The 1929 Allis Chalmers tractor that eliminates 2-3 mule handlers?
-
Bill Gates needs to get bitten by a malarial mosquito.
What an idiot.
-
You mean the robot the company is taxed on buying, carried as an asset on the balance sheet and makes money that the company pays taxes on? Yeah, sounds legit. How about lower the corporate tax rate, institute the Fair tax and watch revenues, economic growth, and people's real income explode?
-
Bill Gates needs to get bitten by a malarial mosquito.
What an idiot.
Apparently he's going off an EU model that still hasn't passed over there.
Ironically, how many jobs did Gates "destroy" with technology?
-
I kind of see where this might be going.
As more and more robots replace human workers, opportunities for income will decrease. Something needs to offset that income opportunity that people were earning. Really not that far off, thinking from human existence on this planet, from robots being able to repair robots, food being created from nutrients in a mechanized lab. Not everyone can be a robot engineer, so where are the income opportunities for people. Are we going to have to come up with some sort of government provided income from taxation of work from robots? Do we have extreme global birth control to reduce the population, lottery for opportunity to produce offspring?
At one time agriculture was the main living of most people (there were labor intensive trade too and office type jobs), as that became more mechanized people off set by reduction went into manufacturing, manufacturing reduces and people move into more service type jobs, so as service jobs are replaced by robots, what it the next job going to be?
-
Apparently he's going off an EU model that still hasn't passed over there.
Ironically, how many jobs did Gates "destroy" with technology?
This is Windows we are talking about right? Any reduction was offset by the IT maintenance personnel hired.
I really doubt he destroyed any. With better data capability, we just use and demand more data.
The bigger question is how much productivity did MS destroy when they decided to scramble the user interface and drop down menus for Excel.
-
Are we going to have to come up with some sort of government provided income from taxation of work from robots?
Nah; just put the dumb ones to work harvesting veggies to be sold to dumber ones as "untouched by teh evil robotz."
-
Are we going to have to come up with some sort of government provided income from taxation of work from robots?
1. The government taxes companies who use robotic production
2. The government gives a portion of that tax money to folks who no longer work
3. Those folks buy the products produced by the taxed companies
In essence, companies would be funding the purchase of their own products through taxes? Assuming no waste or inefficiency, does the math work out?
At one time agriculture was the main living of most people (there were labor intensive trade too and office type jobs), as that became more mechanized people off set by reduction went into manufacturing, manufacturing reduces and people move into more service type jobs, so as service jobs are replaced by robots, what it the next job going to be?
I don't know what their next job is going to be. Then again, as you point out this isn't the first time that jobs or even job sectors have been gutted, replaced or outright eliminated. If you told someone in 1800 that over the next two hundred years 97% of the agricultural jobs would disappear to say nothing of the massive impact on blacksmithing, chimney sweeps, buggy driving, horse training, cloth weaving jobs, (and most other jobs of the day) they might have been forgiven for assuming that no jobs would exist to replace them. They could never have foreseen jobs as laser eye surgeon, database engineer, iPhone repairman, gasoline delivery driver, or YouTube content creator.
If 200 years ago our ancestors had tried to replace the theoretical income lost by the impact of technology with taxes and birth control instead of allowing businesses and workforce to adapt and evolve to use growing technology, would we be better or worse off than we are today?
-
1. The government taxes companies who use robotic production
2. The government gives a portion of that tax money to folks who no longer work
3. Those folks buy the products produced by the taxed companies
In essence, companies would be funding the purchase of their own products through taxes? Assuming no waste or inefficiency, does the math work out?
It's not an apples to apples comparison. Depending upon what level of taxation and government payout given (and number of people receiving) and standard of living at the time it could work, but you'd have to toss out capitalism as we know it.
I don't know what their next job is going to be. Then again, as you point out this isn't the first time that jobs or even job sectors have been gutted, replaced or outright eliminated. If you told someone in 1800 that over the next two hundred years 97% of the agricultural jobs would disappear to say nothing of the massive impact on blacksmithing, chimney sweeps, buggy driving, horse training, cloth weaving jobs, (and most other jobs of the day) they might have been forgiven for assuming that no jobs would exist to replace them. They could never have foreseen jobs as laser eye surgeon, database engineer, iPhone repairman, gasoline delivery driver, or YouTube content creator.
If 200 years ago our ancestors had tried to replace the theoretical income lost by the impact of technology with taxes and birth control instead of allowing businesses and workforce to adapt and evolve to use growing technology, would we be better or worse off than we are today?
True, but before 1600/1700 we has centuries of agriculture and hard manual labor, the last 200 or even 100 years has been rapid changes in technology. We can see it more so than say someone from 1800. Just think about how much technology has replaced people in our short lives, look at how wages have stagnated for many, even from the beginning of globalization of manufacturing in the 70's. Now we are talking about replacing a lot of jobs with robots, even in the service industries, like food preparation in restaurants and cleaning of motel rooms, lawncare, etc.
-
"As more and more robots replace human workers, opportunities for income will decrease."
And if history is any indication, other activities will spring up to fill the gaps created by automation. Some of the new jobs are good, some are not so good.
This cycle has been going on since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Over the short term it can be disruptive as hell, and can be associated with quite a bit of violence (think introduction of power looms in British and even American textile factories)...
Weavers and spinners were replaced by power, leading to displacement of workers (Luddite revolts in the 1810s in Britain), but over time the total number of jobs in the mills skyrocketed because the looms brought the price of cloth down, opening up vast markets both at home and abroad. It also greatly increased the number of jobs in associated industries (think shipping and dock workers required to handle the raw materials being shipped into Britain).
On the negative side, power looms, the cotton gin, and the increased demand for American cotton propped up the Southern slave economy, which had been slowly collapsing under its own weight) and made it immensely profitable, which contributed to the outbreak of the Civil War.
It's all a rich tapestry...
-
The 1929 Allis Chalmers tractor that eliminates 2-3 mule handlers?
Where muh mule handlers?
-
Where muh mule handlers?
Setting check wires for the 2 row planter.
-
"As more and more robots replace human workers, opportunities for income will decrease."
And if history is any indication, other activities will spring up to fill the gaps created by automation. Some of the new jobs are good, some are not so good.
This cycle has been going on since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Over the short term it can be disruptive as hell, and can be associated with quite a bit of violence (think introduction of power looms in British and even American textile factories)...
Weavers and spinners were replaced by power, leading to displacement of workers (Luddite revolts in the 1810s in Britain), but over time the total number of jobs in the mills skyrocketed because the looms brought the price of cloth down, opening up vast markets both at home and abroad. It also greatly increased the number of jobs in associated industries (think shipping and dock workers required to handle the raw materials being shipped into Britain).
On the negative side, power looms, the cotton gin, and the increased demand for American cotton propped up the Southern slave economy, which had been slowly collapsing under its own weight) and made it immensely profitable, which contributed to the outbreak of the Civil War.
It's all a rich tapestry...
Nice pun.
Now what would be some examples of futuristic careers when most labor and repetitive jobs are replaced by robots.
-
Nice pun.
Now what would be some examples of futuristic careers when most labor and repetitive jobs are replaced by robots.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.chud.com%2Fc%2Fc9%2F238x374px-LL-c949990d_tom-selleck-runaway-poster.jpeg&hash=712783848d5ae1a342690559295d20b69509572e)
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.chud.com%2Fc%2Fc9%2F238x374px-LL-c949990d_tom-selleck-runaway-poster.jpeg&hash=712783848d5ae1a342690559295d20b69509572e)
Someone needs to hunt the criminals.
-
Taxing robots strikes me as a very luddite way to resist the march of technology. Placing the burden of work on machines instead of people is a feature, not a bug.
Society has managed to come out just fine (and ahead!) in all the previous upsets disruptive technologies have brought with them - I expect it will continue to do the same.
-
If this roboticizing of work lowers the costs for factors of production we'll see entrepreneurs using these now lower cost factors to do things that are currently too expensive to do.
Don't know what those are yet, but along with weird little niches whole new areas of growth will open up.
I also think that as automation/robotization continues increasing that's going to mean more and more coders and so forth will be needed. Like well beyond what we have now, and that alone will absorb a huge percentage of those that might be displaced. That is kids coming up, maybe not so much older workers; but maybe some of them too.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.chud.com%2Fc%2Fc9%2F238x374px-LL-c949990d_tom-selleck-runaway-poster.jpeg&hash=712783848d5ae1a342690559295d20b69509572e)
I want to believe that the gun he's holding doesn't use normal ammunition, instead it shoots out clones of his mustache and anything a mustache hits is instantly under his control.
-
The magazine well looking thing forward of the trigger is just about the right size to hold a stack of 'stashes.
-
And if history is any indication, other activities will spring up to fill the gaps created by automation. Some of the new jobs are good, some are not so good.
How many modern artistic endeavors are really only possible because the people doing them aren't needed in the fields?
How many corner bookstores - or for that matter, public libraries - predate movable type? How many orders of magnitude did their numbers increase with each advance in mechanized printing and paper manufacture until a typical book cost less than an hour's skilled labor?
-
It's not an apples to apples comparison. Depending upon what level of taxation and government payout given (and number of people receiving) and standard of living at the time it could work, but you'd have to toss out capitalism as we know it.
Interesting theory.
True, but before 1600/1700 we has centuries of agriculture and hard manual labor, the last 200 or even 100 years has been rapid changes in technology. We can see it more so than say someone from 1800. Just think about how much technology has replaced people in our short lives, look at how wages have stagnated for many, even from the beginning of globalization of manufacturing in the 70's. Now we are talking about replacing a lot of jobs with robots, even in the service industries, like food preparation in restaurants and cleaning of motel rooms, lawncare, etc.
Given the multitude of technological improvements, decreased cost and increased availability (as well as outright creation!) of both staples and luxuries, safer working conditions, etc. weighed honestly against perceived stagnating wages and lost/reduced sectors of employment, do you believe people on average are commercially worse off today versus at any arbitrary point in history? As an addendum, if you do believe that there was a historical golden age in which people were better off than today, were the adverse changes due to increases in technology or increases in governmental interference?
I would argue that whenever there is technological upheaval in a relatively free market some individuals will suffer in the short run and society overall benefits. Artificially holding back and discouraging technological development does nothing to improve conditions except for select special interests.
Now what would be some examples of futuristic careers when most labor and repetitive jobs are replaced by robots.
Don't confuse an individual's lack of prescience with the inability of society to cope with technological change. Just because someone in 1950 would have been unlikely to predict the commercial implications of e-commerce, smartphones and automatic car washes doesn't mean that society hasn't incorporated those technologies to great benefit. Even in 1990 very few people could have foreseen careers that would exist twenty years later.
-
Interesting theory.
Given the multitude of technological improvements, decreased cost and increased availability (as well as outright creation!) of both staples and luxuries, safer working conditions, etc. weighed honestly against perceived stagnating wages and lost/reduced sectors of employment, do you believe people on average are commercially worse off today versus at any arbitrary point in history? As an addendum, if you do believe that there was a historical golden age in which people were better off than today, were the adverse changes due to increases in technology or increases in governmental interference?
I think our golden age for individual economic success was post WWII-1970. For the most part most people with a high school education (and a decent worth ethic) you could land a job that in a few years supported a single income middle class household.
Health wise we are better off today then during that period, but there are skeptics of modern medicine that would love to bring us back before all the advances in medicine.
Also it appears that being an entrepreneur from a rags to riches is harder now a days then in the past, or at least there is fewer opportunities. Sometimes due to regulations, market is already cornered by a much bigger player or people just won't pay a price for a good or service that can create a livable profit for the entrepreneur. Someone is already doing it cheaper, faster or in volume with low wage employees.
This is a segway, but is the movement to strip benefits and reduce wages from public sector employees a start to emulate that in the private sector, basically remove competition of losing employees for something slightly better in benefits or even wages? We know many technology companies use imported skilled workers because they will work under market value, is lower wages and reduced standard of living going to be the new thing for everyone who isn't in the wealthy class? Is this going to a repeat of the late 1800s-early 1900s where labor is basically exploited with a meager salary where the captains of industry explode their wealth. Robots going to be the "exploited ones" and most of society become peasants?
-
This is a segway
No, this is a Segway:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Emyong%2Fimages%2Fsegway.png&hash=acc9b838e7fe49d3174194a74bbd47c3eb7289ad)
I think you mean segue
Chris
-
I think you mean segue
Chris
:facepalm: yep
-
Even in 1990 very few people could have foreseen careers that would exist twenty years later.
Oh, folks were predicting the rise of the Professional Able Bodied Welfare Leech.
-
I think our golden age for individual economic success was post WWII-1970. For the most part most people with a high school education (and a decent worth ethic) you could land a job that in a few years supported a single income middle class household.
I'd wager a hard working person with a high school diploma, decent work ethic AND willing to live at a 1960s standard of living could probably do okay today.
Also it appears that being an entrepreneur from a rags to riches is harder now a days then in the past, or at least there is fewer opportunities. Sometimes due to regulations, market is already cornered by a much bigger player or people just won't pay a price for a good or service that can create a livable profit for the entrepreneur. Someone is already doing it cheaper, faster or in volume with low wage employees.
Rags to riches stories have always been outliers and are often driven by developers and early adopters of new technologies. And the flip side of the "it is too cheap to make a living selling [something]!" is that people with lower income can afford more [something].
This is a segway, but is the movement to strip benefits and reduce wages from public sector employees a start to emulate that in the private sector, basically remove competition of losing employees for something slightly better in benefits or even wages?
I think the issues people have with government employee compensation is the unsustainable nature of employees retiring after 20 years of public service and drawing pensions and insurance for the next thirty to fifty years. That is equivalent to being given taxpayer provided multi-million dollar severance packages at the age of 45. Or, put another way, it's like paying folks an extra $100,000 - $300,000 every single year on top of their regular salary and benefits.
I don't think a movement to reduce those benefits is an evil corporate scheme, just a recognition of very bad math and a rejection of the idea of healthy, capable people perceived as living as parasites on the public dime.
-
I'd wager a hard working person with a high school diploma, decent work ethic AND willing to live at a 1960s standard of living could probably do okay today.
I want to be able to live in the 1960s standard of living. College educated in the 1960s in a science field, you'd be making bank.
I think the issues people have with government employee compensation is the unsustainable nature of employees retiring after 20 years of public service and drawing pensions and insurance for the next thirty to fifty years. That is equivalent to being given taxpayer provided multi-million dollar severance packages at the age of 45. Or, put another way, it's like paying folks an extra $100,000 - $300,000 every single year on top of their regular salary and benefits.
I don't think a movement to reduce those benefits is an evil corporate scheme, just a recognition of very bad math and a rejection of the idea of healthy, capable people perceived as living as parasites on the public dime.
Corporate pensions went away because they became victim of hostile takeovers, investment groups looks at companies with a large pension account as a place to get free money for more investment. 401K was designed as additional retirement savings, not to be the only retirement option outside of social security.
Also what freaking state does what you mentioned above? I want to go work there.
I work for the State of Iowa and we don't even come close to that. Our pension plan is you pay 6.5% in, state pays 6.5%, takes 7 years to be vested and it's not portable. You can't draw from it unless your years of service and age match 88, 20 years and 60 years of age or legal retirement age. Each year in it is 2% of your best five year salary average up to 60% (30 years of service). We don't get free health insurance when you retire or become disabled. Vacation accrues by years of service 1-5 years (2 weeks) 5-12 years (3 weeks) 12-19 years (4 weeks) 19-25 years (4.5 weeks) 25 years (5 weeks). We have insurance, but the cheapest is an HMO and you have to play by the HMO rules, I have that one because I figured it out 14 years ago.
Private sector I can make $20-30K per year over the top of the pay scale for my state job, I was going to go that route but I'd probably be traveling 50% of the time vs I stay out maybe 25 nights a year. Best way to describe my job is pesticide risk management and regulation compliance. Big Ag Chem (like Bayer or DuPont) and insurance companies is who I'd work for in the private sector, I do get an occasional email asking to apply for position with their company.
-
Also what freaking state does what you mentioned above? I want to go work there.
CA, NY, NJ to name a few. I have a buddy who retired from a CalPers special district at 50 with an 80% pension and full medical. These states beat the hell out of federal retirement, and even federal employment. I always had to cover 1/3 of my federal health insurance while working. State employees do (or at least did) get 100% coverage.
These plans generally end up being unsustainable given the (usually) liberal leaning states that do them have higher than average numbers per capita of state, regional, and local employees that all fully take advantage of the programs. Add to that all the SJW activist employees and public unions constantly fight to have state gov divest from "unacceptable" holdings in the retirement portfolios (which also happen to be profitable stock holdings), and you've got too many people trying to pull from an ever shrinking pot of money.
-
and Illinois.
-
Charby - your pension beats the pants off any private sector pension I've encountered since graduating from college in 2001. The only 2 companies that I've worked for that still had active pension plans were about half as good as what you get. With that pension, even if you didn't save a dime on your own in IRA's (or employer sponsored equivalents), and if you assume SS will still be there, you'll likely be making 80-90% of your pre-retirement income.
In general, given the choice between a pension and a 401k with a match I'd rather have the 401k. It's nice that my current employer provides both, but that's unusual. The nice thing about the 401k is that you can take it with you if you leave to go elsewhere, and if you invest it reasonably wisely that benefit will continue to grow over time. Whereas a pension is locked to a fixed benefit (if you even stayed long enough to vest) that can never go up. If you were to work at a succession of employers just long enough to vest in the pension you'd wind up in the end with a lot less retirement income than if you'd taken an equivalent sum as the company put into the pension fund for you and dumped it into a 401k and rolled that over as you jumped from employer to employer.
Anyway, thus far every major technological disruption has in the long run resulted in more and better paying employment opportunities. I see no reason at this point to doubt that will happen again.
-
I want to be able to live in the 1960s standard of living.
... says charby on the internet.
I'm pretty sure you don't, actually.
Corporate pensions went away because they became victim of hostile takeovers, investment groups looks at companies with a large pension account as a place to get free money for more investment.
That's not quite the whole story. Sure, that sort of thing happened, but even well run pension plans suffered from increased recipient lifespans and dealing with distributions during rocky financial periods. Plus, increasingly mobile workers received less value from a pension plan.
Now, if you want to talk about greedy pension theft, governments have done more than corporations ever have. The difference is governments can just stick it to the taxpayer.
Also what freaking state does what you mentioned above? I want to go work there.
New York was what I had in mind.
I work for the State of Iowa and we don't even come close to that. Our pension plan is you pay 6.5% in, state pays 6.5%, takes 7 years to be vested and it's not portable. You can't draw from it unless your years of service and age match 88, 20 years and 60 years of age or legal retirement age. Each year in it is 2% of your best five year salary average up to 60% (30 years of service). We don't get free health insurance when you retire or become disabled. Vacation accrues by years of service 1-5 years (2 weeks) 5-12 years (3 weeks) 12-19 years (4 weeks) 19-25 years (4.5 weeks) 25 years (5 weeks). We have insurance, but the cheapest is an HMO and you have to play by the HMO rules, I have that one because I figured it out 14 years ago.
Making some quick assumptions of a 30 year career with an average of $50,000 per year and a highest 5 year salary of $70,000 would result in a retirement benefit of $42,000 a year for a total investment of about $100,000 on your part. If the pension fund is actually collecting the money and investing it, and the stock market is doing well that's likely a pretty healthy pension.
If you live to be 85 then over 25 years you'd draw $1,050,000. If the funds aren't invested, then the taxpayer is funding an extra $35,000 per year or so.
-
... says charby on the internet.
I'm pretty sure you don't, actually.
That's not quite the whole story. Sure, that sort of thing happened, but even well run pension plans suffered from increased recipient lifespans and dealing with distributions during rocky financial periods. Plus, increasingly mobile workers received less value from a pension plan.
Now, if you want to talk about greedy pension theft, governments have done more than corporations ever have. The difference is governments can just stick it to the taxpayer.
New York was what I had in mind.
Making some quick assumptions of a 30 year career with an average of $50,000 per year and a highest 5 year salary of $70,000 would result in a retirement benefit of $42,000 a year for a total investment of about $100,000 on your part. If the pension fund is actually collecting the money and investing it, and the stock market is doing well that's likely a pretty healthy pension.
If you live to be 85 then over 25 years you'd draw $1,050,000. If the funds aren't invested, then the taxpayer is funding an extra $35,000 per year or so.
It's invested, separate account, state politicians try to steal from it but always get slapped by the courts.
I worked at Iowa State University before the state, we had a 403b, which is portable after being vested for 4 years.
-
... says charby on the internet.
I'm pretty sure you don't, actually.
I was an adult before the Internet as we know it was available. I'd be fine with returning to those times.
I'm talking more about wages and your spending power.
-
Wasn't a lot of that post-war economic boom a consequence of other manufacturing nations being wrecked by world war?
-
Wasn't a lot of that post-war economic boom a consequence of other manufacturing nations being wrecked by world war?
I would say yes in part. It is also good to note that in the late 60's, we started welfare via LBJ's Great Society stuff. In the 70's we started OSHA and EPA started somewhere in there.
-
1. The government taxes companies who use robotic production
2. The government gives a portion of that tax money to folks who no longer work
3. Those folks buy the products produced by the taxed companies
In essence, companies would be funding the purchase of their own products through taxes? Assuming no waste or inefficiency, does the math work out?
Just wanted to make a point on this. Paying taxes has a cost in accountants and tax preparation. Collecting taxes has a cost in accountants and auditors and enforcement. Even if you assume very high govt efficiency, there will be a percentage leeched off just paying and collecting taxes. So even without waste and inefficiency included, the math doesn't work. Add to that the waste and general inefficiency of govt along with basic fraud that occurs when someone is handing out free money and there is no way and hell that math works.
Even without all that, companies are in business to make money. Essentially buying their own goods to hand to others is not profitable. Including extra middle men (govt) in the mix doesn't change that. It only makes it more complicated and therefore easier to sell to people who don't want to think about it (communism).
-
If someone wants to make a mint producing robots, invent a Robotic Government Bureaucrat. There would be an endless need.
However, if you design it to be completely honest, it may not work. You need to include add ons for political influence and lobbyists.
-
I am not worried about jobs. Someone has to design and build the robots. Someone has to program them. Someone will have to maintain and repair them. Despite Hollywood movies, magic robots that self construct and self repair don't exist. Even today, automated manufacturing plants require a lot of maintenance and major overhauls. A big part of what our operators and maintenance guys at the chemical plants do is try to identify problems developing and troubleshooting and fix problems that occur. It is a continuous job. I can't see that disappearing.
-
Just wanted to make a point on this. Paying taxes has a cost in accountants and tax preparation. Collecting taxes has a cost in accountants and auditors and enforcement. Even if you assume very high govt efficiency, there will be a percentage leeched off just paying and collecting taxes. So even without waste and inefficiency included, the math doesn't work. Add to that the waste and general inefficiency of govt along with basic fraud that occurs when someone is handing out free money and there is no way and hell that math works.
Even without all that, companies are in business to make money. Essentially buying their own goods to hand to others is not profitable. Including extra middle men (govt) in the mix doesn't change that. It only makes it more complicated and therefore easier to sell to people who don't want to think about it (communism).
Just so we are clear I am completely in agreement and aware of all of these points. My response was generously simplified for the sake of argument, and the response that resulted was pretty much what I expected.
-
Personally, rather than taxing 'robots', I'd bump capital gains or such.
Here's my reasoning:
More and more, the wealth of our economy is generated by capital - robots, industrial machines, computers, and similar than by actual labor.
This creates an eventual problem that we see even today when Billionaires pay less in taxes than their secretaries - because even though they're very excellently paid secretaries, we currently tax labor more than capital gains and dividends. This makes it hard for people to, by working an honest job, build up sufficient capital to enjoy a significant portion of that pie. Especially since the returns on said pie have been dropping, meaning that you need more capital than ever to make enough return to live on.
So, rather than some radical change, all I suggest is lowering the 7.65% we're taxing employers simply to hire employees and instead charge a smidge more in capital gains(corporate tax rates are too high as is), or perhaps institute some sort of property tax - businesses pay a percentage(tiny small) of the valuation of their assets. Perhaps put an 'alternative minimum' tax on businesses like there are for people, given how many highly profitable businesses have managed to avoid nearly all taxation for decades.
-
Or just lower payroll and income taxes and spend less money. =D
-
Just so we are clear I am completely in agreement and aware of all of these points. My response was generously simplified for the sake of argument, and the response that resulted was pretty much what I expected.
Okay. Sometimes I wonder if dumb ideas spread partly because others assume everyone realizes it is dumb and say nothing. =D
-
Or just lower payroll and income taxes and spend less money. =D
I tend to isolate systems. Spending less money to be able to lower taxes is a separate argument, and I'd rather balance the budget first.
-
If someone wants to make a mint producing robots, invent a Robotic Government Bureaucrat. There would be an endless need.
Don't do that, they'll have you killed. That kind of thing is for the proles to deal with. [tinfoil]
-
Billionaires pay less in taxes than their secretaries
Nope. You're thinking of Warren Buffett's comment, which was actually untrue at just about every level. He pays a higher rate on his regular income, and pays vastly more in taxes. Further, he annually gives his secretary significant stock investments for which she pays the same capital gains rate as he does. So, no.
Further, the corporation already pays taxes on the dividends before they go to the investor. The reality is that for an investor to pocket $100 the company must earn $201.90 in profit. The company pays $70.66 and then the investor pays another $31.24. That's a tax rate of over 50%.
This makes it hard for people to, by working an honest job, build up sufficient capital to enjoy a significant portion of that pie. Especially since the returns on said pie have been dropping, meaning that you need more capital than ever to make enough return to live on.
Let's say you boosted capital gains to 40% or something. Would that help the poor people working an honest job earn one dime more? What about 50%? 60%?
But you said you wanted to drop FICA, right? If you increased capital gains to replace FICA, you'd have to double or triple the current rate just to replace FICA in a good year for the stock market. And that assumes that when you start taxing people at 50-75% on top of the 35% corporate taxes they choose to keep investing at all. My guess is folks - rich and poor - would pull their assets out of the market pretty quickly at that point. People respond to incentives and the incentive there is to crash the stock market.
So much for balancing the budget.
-
I was an adult before the Internet as we know it was available. I'd be fine with returning to those times.
Nothing is stopping you. You can achieve a middle-class 1960s era lifestyle on a lower-class budget today.
I'm talking more about wages and your spending power.
But that's not what we were talking about. The discussion has been about the impact of technology on quality of life. Advances in technology and automation have improved quality of life for everyone, including people at lower wages.
-
I tend to isolate systems. Spending less money to be able to lower taxes is a separate argument, and I'd rather balance the budget first.
That is the rub. It isn't a separate issue. If you are spending more than your income, you are not going to balance anything. You don't increase taxes first to balance the budget rather than decrease spending. It is very rare for a government budget problem to be too much revenue.
If you listen to Dave Ramsey, his financial discussion usually starts with making a budget and eliminating unnecessary spending.
-
Personally, rather than taxing 'robots', I'd bump capital gains or such.
It's a pet peeve of mine, so apologies in advance if I sound snippy. Hell no on the capital gains and dividend tax increases.
Everyone always seems to equate capital gains and dividend income with Thurston Howell III. My middle income retirement is based on capital gains and dividend income. I (and many others) don't want to be punished for being better savers while we were working. When I maxed my TSP contributions, extra money went into Vanguard taxable accounts, which I'm partially living on now until I hit an age where I can draw tax advantaged money.
It's bad enough that I get taxed at all on capital gains and dividends, given that the money I invested for them was already taxed via payroll. To me, it's double dipping by fed.gov and the state.
-
^^^ Yeah, that.
We need a "like" button around here.
-
Everyone always seems to equate capital gains and dividend income with Thurston Howell III. My middle income retirement is based on capital gains and dividend income. I (and many others) don't want to be punished for being better savers while we were working.
This; it's really not that hard for the average worker to put their savings to work in ways that the capital gains tax very nearly ruins. IMO, one of the best ways to help out the low-to-moderately skilled but hard working folks out there would be a HS class on how to invest relatively small amounts and a complete rework (if not outright elimination) of the way capital gains are taxed.
-
We will cope.
One of the main problems in society is how we define "poverty". It's a constant game of "move the cheese" by those who can make political gains from constantly redefining what "poor" is. If you have a safe functional roof over your head, and utilities, you are not "poor" by any meaningful standard worldwide, or throughout history.
Automation does remove jobs, but it also lowers costs and improves productivity, leading to cheaper goods and services. Granted, this doesn't help if your income is "zero", but think long and hard... I mean really OCD obsessively deep about every last product and service you use during the day that isn't directly related to basic survival. And all the supporting logistical industries that supply those, and so on.
These are all products of industrialization and automation.
Honestly, when we consider a highly automated future where fewer and fewer people need to "work", including "knowledge jobs", as computer design and software creation itself starts to automate, we may not be even looking at what the real problems might be.
And then we're not even getting into what kind of savings we can have if we automate vast swaths of government, reducing its tax burden.
https://archive.org/stream/galaxymagazine-1954-04/Galaxy_1954_04#page/n59/mode/2up
-
One of the main problems in society is how we define "poverty". It's a constant game of "move the cheese" by those who can make political gains from constantly redefining what "poor" is. If you have a safe functional roof over your head, and utilities, you are not "poor" by any meaningful standard worldwide, or throughout history.
So much this; I don't think the guy at church with a 3800sf house and two year old top-options-package truck realizes how close I've come to feeding him his teeth when he whines about not being able to afford a new truck or a house that's "big enough" for his family of four. Frankly, I think I've come closer to initiating violence in a house of God to shut him up than anything else.
Granted, this doesn't help if your income is "zero",
Actually it does; people are much more likely to be charitable if that meal you need is three bucks than if it's $20.
-
Nope. You're thinking of Warren Buffett's comment, which was actually untrue at just about every level. He pays a higher rate on his regular income, and pays vastly more in taxes. Further, he annually gives his secretary significant stock investments for which she pays the same capital gains rate as he does. So, no.
He pays a lower percentage of his income. He has relatively very little "regular income", while the Secretary has comparatively little capital gains, more regular income, that puts the secretary into the highest marginal tax rates anyways.
Further, the corporation already pays taxes on the dividends before they go to the investor. The reality is that for an investor to pocket $100 the company must earn $201.90 in profit. The company pays $70.66 and then the investor pays another $31.24. That's a tax rate of over 50%.
You missed my mentioning that the corporate tax rate is too high, didn't you? It's what has resulted in investors being more for 'growth' corporations than ones that pay a steady dividend.
Lowering the corporate tax rate might actually increase tax revenues.
Let's say you boosted capital gains to 40% or something. Would that help the poor people working an honest job earn one dime more? What about 50%? 60%?
Nope. Lowering FICA by a % or so would do that. The boost to capital gains would be to offset the taxes lost by doing so, in order to keep a neutral revenue flow. I don't actually support lowering overall taxes until we don't have a deficit and are making inroads on paying off our debt.
But you said you wanted to drop FICA, right? If you increased capital gains to replace FICA, you'd have to double or triple the current rate just to replace FICA in a good year for the stock market.
A bit of a slippery slope here, I said "lower" not "drop" or eliminate. I'm not trying to completely eliminate FICA, just lower the burden it places on employers.
Also, capital gains is more than just the stock market.
About $93B (https://taxfoundation.org/federal-capital-gains-tax-collections-1954-2009/) year, about a 14.4% effective rate.
FICA is roughly $700B (http://math.ucdenver.edu/~wbriggs/qr/budget04.html), at a 15.3% tax rate.
Drop it 1%, and you'd need to make up about $46B. You'd need to increase capital gains, exclusive of behavior shifts, to 21.5% effective.
So, no, not 50-75% 'on top of'. Lowering the corporate tax rate would probably result in more stability for businesses, because the current situation favors growth too much, over stability.
And that assumes that when you start taxing people at 50-75% on top of the 35% corporate taxes they choose to keep investing at all. My guess is folks - rich and poor - would pull their assets out of the market pretty quickly at that point. People respond to incentives and the incentive there is to crash the stock market.
Then what else are they spending it on? If they're out buying stuff, that's economic stuff people will need to be employed to produce.
-
He pays a lower percentage of his income. He has relatively very little "regular income", while the Secretary has comparatively little capital gains, more regular income, that puts the secretary into the highest marginal tax rates anyways.
His secretary earns (or did back when he was making a stink) only about $60,000 per year (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/13/buffetts-rebuff/). That puts her at maximum in the 25% tax bracket for her salary assuming zero deductions. Most people who make $60,000 a year get away with a lot lower rate than that - something like 11% or 12%. The capital gains on the investments he gifts her with would be taxed at a lower rate because of her tax bracket - 15% at the worst case for her current salary.
So, no, still not true.
Nope. Lowering FICA by a % or so would do that. The boost to capital gains would be to offset the taxes lost by doing so, in order to keep a neutral revenue flow. I don't actually support lowering overall taxes until we don't have a deficit and are making inroads on paying off our debt.
Lowering FICA is great, but I maintain that trying to offset it with capital gains is not likely to keep a neutral revenue flow.
A bit of a slippery slope here, I said "lower" not "drop" or eliminate. I'm not trying to completely eliminate FICA, just lower the burden it places on employers.
You are correct, you did say "lower", not "drop". My mistake.
Also, capital gains is more than just the stock market.
About $93B (https://taxfoundation.org/federal-capital-gains-tax-collections-1954-2009/) year, about a 14.4% effective rate.
A few points:
1. Yes, capital gains applies to more than the stock market. But what happens when the stock market tanks? Take a look at the actual capital gains in the chart you linked to and what happened between 2007 and 2009.
2. Where did you get your $93 billion number from?
3. The chart above ends in 2009 when the maximum long-term rate was 15.35%. A more current version of the same chart (https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/Taxes-Paid-on-Capital-Gains-for-Returns-with-Positive-Net-Capital-Gains.xlsx) shows data through 2014. Note that the current effective rate is 19.4%.
FICA is roughly $700B (http://math.ucdenver.edu/~wbriggs/qr/budget04.html), at a 15.3% tax rate.
Those numbers are from 2002.
More current data (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/payroll-tax-receipts) shows that we're well over a trillion dollars today.
Drop it 1%, and you'd need to make up about $46B. You'd need to increase capital gains, exclusive of behavior shifts, to 21.5% effective.
So, no, not 50-75% 'on top of'. Lowering the corporate tax rate would probably result in more stability for businesses, because the current situation favors growth too much, over stability.
;/
I like the idea of reducing FICA, but you're suggesting replacing a relatively stable tax with an incredibly volatile tax. Further, the current maximum rate on capital gains is already 23.8%.
Using 2014's numbers: drop FICA by 1% and you have to make up about $67 billion. Capital gains collections for 2014 were $139 billion at 19.4% effective. That means that to replace a 1% FICA reduction you'd have to raise capital gains to 28.8% effective. But 2014 was a pretty good year.
As noted, in 2009 the same 1% drop would have necessitated the replacement of $58 billion in taxes or - for that year - an effective capital gains tax rate of 36%. For one measly percent in FICA reduction.
Then what else are they spending it on? If they're out buying stuff, that's economic stuff people will need to be employed to produce.
Oh yeah! Just like in all the other stock market collapses!
-
1. Yes, capital gains applies to more than the stock market. But what happens when the stock market tanks? Take a look at the actual capital gains in the chart you linked to and what happened between 2007 and 2009.
It's the government. It can afford to ride out fluctuations. One can argue that it should only have balanced revenues and spending on a basis averaged over time. IE build up a surplus when the economy is good, spend it when it's bad.
2. Where did you get your $93 billion number from?
Average of last 5 years of capital gains, because they do vary.
3. The chart above ends in 2009 when the maximum long-term rate was 15.35%. A more current version of the same chart (https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/Taxes-Paid-on-Capital-Gains-for-Returns-with-Positive-Net-Capital-Gains.xlsx) shows data through 2014. Note that the current effective rate is 19.4%.
Then with very little modification it could be done.
Those numbers are from 2002.
Why I said 'about'. They were a little difficult to find, I went with what I found.
For one measly percent in FICA reduction.
At the scale FICA works at, it ends up not being all that measly if it gives 'everybody' who earns $20k another $200 in their pocket, because $200 is something useful to them. Though that depends on whether you're giving it on the employee or employer side.
-
It's the government. It can afford to ride out fluctuations. One can argue that it should only have balanced revenues and spending on a basis averaged over time. IE build up a surplus when the economy is good, spend it when it's bad.
I commend your optimism, but since we're going whole hog and presuming long-term governmental fiscal responsibility and steady economic growth why not presume some spending cuts alongside?
Then with very little modification it could be done.
??? What could be done? You are using bad numbers to inform changes that wouldn't do what you claim they would. Raising taxes to the levels your hasty calculations say it should be (based on outdated data from different years) would not even come close to replacing the FICA revenue lost at current levels.
Why I said 'about'. They were a little difficult to find, I went with what I found.
Sure, what's a few hundred billion among friends?
At the scale FICA works at, it ends up not being all that measly if it gives 'everybody' who earns $20k another $200 in their pocket, because $200 is something useful to them. Though that depends on whether you're giving it on the employee or employer side.
An extra McDonalds meal twice a month for low-income folks is nice but isn't going to have a dramatic impact. The 2% FICA holidays of a few years back were pleasant but didn't change very many lives.
-
Using 2014's numbers: drop FICA by 1% and you have to make up about $67 billion.
Well, how much can we get if instead of firing (or "encouraging to resign") all those useless bureaucrats, we sell them instead? Slavery or spare parts, doesn't really matter; as long as they go to reducing the amount previous administrations have wasted employing them.
-
Why aren't tax cuts working out for Kansas?
-
Well, how much can we get if instead of firing (or "encouraging to resign") all those useless bureaucrats, we sell them instead? Slavery or spare parts, doesn't really matter; as long as they go to reducing the amount previous administrations have wasted employing them.
Who would buy them?
-
Why aren't tax cuts working out for Kansas?
What do you mean by "Not working out" ??
-
I commend your optimism, but since we're going whole hog and presuming long-term governmental fiscal responsibility and steady economic growth why not presume some spending cuts alongside?
??? What could be done? You are using bad numbers to inform changes that wouldn't do what you claim they would. Raising taxes to the levels your hasty calculations say it should be (based on outdated data from different years) would not even come close to replacing the FICA revenue lost at current levels.
Sure, what's a few hundred billion among friends?
An extra McDonalds meal twice a month for low-income folks is nice but isn't going to have a dramatic impact. The 2% FICA holidays of a few years back were pleasant but didn't change very many lives.
You both are missing the big picture. The beast needs to be starved, not feeding from difference troughs...
-
What do you mean by "Not working out" ??
You been reading the news? Brownback's trickle down experiment isn't working out.
-
How low would taxes need to be before keeping more of one's money gets to the point of not working out?
-
How low would taxes need to be before keeping more of one's money gets to the point of not working out?
When your house is on fire and no fire department to put out the flames. When you don't have potable water, no sanitary sewer, etc.
-
When your house is on fire and no fire department to put out the flames. When you don't have potable water, no sanitary sewer, etc.
This currently obtains in Kansas, because the state cut taxes? Cut them to what? 0?
-
This currently obtains in Kansas, because the state cut taxes? Cut them to what? 0?
Cut income taxes (eventually to 0), raised consumptive taxes to offset, state income dropped, services got reduced even more, residents are pissed about that and recently even the GOP there (seeing the need for some services) is going against Gov Brownback. It's been in the news a lot in the last couple of months. Even talking about restoring planned parenthood funding and teacher tenure.
-
When your house is on fire and no fire department to put out the flames. When you don't have potable water, no sanitary sewer, etc.
Which tends to happen at about .01% tax cuts as the politicians cut critical services first to make the situation look vastly worse than it is.
-
Which tends to happen at about .01% tax cuts as the politicians cut critical services first to make the situation look vastly worse than it is.
No, it usually what the politician sees as not necessary but the minority party hold close to their chest.
-
No, it usually what the politician sees as not necessary but the minority party hold close to their chest.
Around here, it's usually the police budget that gets threatened first; road, sewer, etc. cuts don't have immediate, highly visible results. Another trick was cutting the city water department's hours to worse than a bank.
-
You been reading the news? Brownback's trickle down experiment isn't working out.
No, what you have the NYT, HuffPo and others getting the vapors because the bureaucrats issued a report "recommending" where the budget needed to by cut (if only cuts were made and no tax increases) that call for the sale of widows and orphans, along with closing every school.
Which is the typical bureaucrat response to every attempt to cut a government budget. "Wellllllllllllllll, you could do that but we'll have to start putting old people on iceflows in the winter and turn school kids into soylent green during the school year.
Why is the State involved in Education? Should that be under local control ? With those taxpayers determining who much they should spend for K-12 education? Same with higher ed. Shut off the "free money" taps (both grants to schools, and loans to students) and watch demand drop and prices also (We have a skills gap in this country, too many overeducated idiots who could contribute to society if we didn't have this "Everyone goes to college" bushwa.)
Here in Illinois, we haven't had a budget, or a state government for that matter, for over 2 years. If the MSM didn't keep beating the "Gov Rauner is making the sky fall !!!" everyday, no one would notice. Roads suck just as much as they did 3 years ago, we still have cops, fire departments (Town next door is all volunteer), schools are open. Only the Chicago Public Schools are doing the "We'll run out of money 3-4 weeks before the beginning of summer vacation" rain dance, but outside of Chicago, the consensus is pretty much "Good. Do it." If anything there is probably less graft and corruption* simply because there's no money to steal.
Counties, Towns, Villages, et al. have had to tighten their belts and learn to do with less. In my county bureaucrat headcount has shrunk through attrition. No one notices.
There aren't any mass die-offs in the streets. The ER at the local hospital is just as packed with illegal aliens with the cold and flu as it has been in years past (maybe a bit moreso, since Illinois went full retard on the Obamacare Medicaid Expansion. That's a ticking budget timebomb...) Trash got picked up today, traffic lights continue to work, and life goes on. Proving that State government is pretty much farking useless and worthless. Other than causing some consternation and hand wringing as bureaucrats will have to sharpen their pencils, I hope Brownbeck holds the course and shrinks the .gov.
All this fear and panic in Kansas sounds like the smoke and mirrors we get here.
*- Chicago being the exception, simply because they are not totally broke yet, so there is still money to steal.
-
Cut income taxes (eventually to 0), raised consumptive taxes to offset, state income dropped, services got reduced even more, residents are pissed about that and recently even the GOP there (seeing the need for some services) is going against Gov Brownback. It's been in the news a lot in the last couple of months. Even talking about restoring planned parenthood funding and teacher tenure.
Sounds way too good to be true, if you think about. Like, with your brain and stuff. I wish every state had such a problem.
-
No, what you have the NYT, HuffPo and others getting the vapors because the bureaucrats issued a report "recommending" where the budget needed to by cut (if only cuts were made and no tax increases) that call for the sale of widows and orphans, along with closing every school.
Which is the typical bureaucrat response to every attempt to cut a government budget. "Wellllllllllllllll, you could do that but we'll have to start putting old people on iceflows in the winter and turn school kids into soylent green during the school year.
Why is the State involved in Education? Should that be under local control ? With those taxpayers determining who much they should spend for K-12 education? Same with higher ed. Shut off the "free money" taps (both grants to schools, and loans to students) and watch demand drop and prices also (We have a skills gap in this country, too many overeducated idiots who could contribute to society if we didn't have this "Everyone goes to college" bushwa.)
Here in Illinois, we haven't had a budget, or a state government for that matter, for over 2 years. If the MSM didn't keep beating the "Gov Rauner is making the sky fall !!!" everyday, no one would notice. Roads suck just as much as they did 3 years ago, we still have cops, fire departments (Town next door is all volunteer), schools are open. Only the Chicago Public Schools are doing the "We'll run out of money 3-4 weeks before the beginning of summer vacation" rain dance, but outside of Chicago, the consensus is pretty much "Good. Do it." If anything there is probably less graft and corruption* simply because there's no money to steal.
Counties, Towns, Villages, et al. have had to tighten their belts and learn to do with less. In my county bureaucrat headcount has shrunk through attrition. No one notices.
There aren't any mass die-offs in the streets. The ER at the local hospital is just as packed with illegal aliens with the cold and flu as it has been in years past (maybe a bit moreso, since Illinois went full retard on the Obamacare Medicaid Expansion. That's a ticking budget timebomb...) Trash got picked up today, traffic lights continue to work, and life goes on. Proving that State government is pretty much farking useless and worthless. Other than causing some consternation and hand wringing as bureaucrats will have to sharpen their pencils, I hope Brownbeck holds the course and shrinks the .gov.
All this fear and panic in Kansas sounds like the smoke and mirrors we get here.
*- Chicago being the exception, simply because they are not totally broke yet, so there is still money to steal.
Actually I first read about on The National Review website.
-
When your house is on fire and no fire department to put out the flames. When you don't have potable water, no sanitary sewer, etc.
Down here in Texas the local cities, towns and counties handle those services. I guess they must do it differently up there in Kansas. =)
-
Ah using the same old bullshit as always...Ermagahd The PoliceFireEmsWaterSchools won't exist anymore and "I don't want rivers on fire!"
Y'all need a new playbook lol
Fact of the matter is...the producers in this country that aren't holding cushy jobs in .gov and academia are *expletive deleted*ing sick and tired of paying out the ass in taxes so mother *expletive deleted*ers can sit around on welfare all day (no it's not a low percentage, is gonna claim that bullshit). We are tired of paying taxes so college students can get their snowflake on. We are tired of paying for a "justice system" that doesn't do *expletive deleted*it when it comes to punishing criminals. We are tired of paying for other people's healthcare while we are being raped in the ass with no lube by Obamacare. We are tired of illegals gaming the system while those of us that are law abiding get absolutely *expletive deleted*ed. We are tired of bullshit agencies like the EPA *expletive deleted*ing our industries. We are sick and tired of the government screwing us over while the dregs of society get to do whatever the hell they want
That is why Trump got elected. It's a giant *expletive deleted*ck You to the system and to the liberals. And the way things are going he won't have to spend a dime or a minute for 2020 because the asswipes in society are loudly and proudly making the case for his reelection.
-
Down here in Texas the local cities, towns and counties handle those services. I guess they must do it differently up there in Kansas. =)
And taxes fund those.
-
Ah using the same old bullshit as always...Ermagahd The PoliceFireEmsWaterSchools won't exist anymore and "I don't want rivers on fire!"
Y'all need a new playbook lol
Fact of the matter is...the producers in this country that aren't holding cushy jobs in .gov and academia are *expletive deleted*ing sick and tired of paying out the ass in taxes so mother *expletive deleted*ers can sit around on welfare all day (no it's not a low percentage, is gonna claim that bullshit). We are tired of paying taxes so college students can get their snowflake on. We are tired of paying for a "justice system" that doesn't do *expletive deleted*it when it comes to punishing criminals. We are tired of paying for other people's healthcare while we are being raped in the ass with no lube by Obamacare. We are tired of illegals gaming the system while those of us that are law abiding get absolutely *expletive deleted*ed. We are tired of bullshit agencies like the EPA *expletive deleted*ing our industries. We are sick and tired of the government screwing us over while the dregs of society get to do whatever the hell they want
That is why Trump got elected. It's a giant *expletive deleted*ck You to the system and to the liberals. And the way things are going he won't have to spend a dime or a minute for 2020 because the asswipes in society are loudly and proudly making the case for his reelection.
Show me where a tax cut actually worked and other taxes or fees weren't raised elsewhere.
Show me an actual example where trickle down economics worked and was lasting.
-
Show me an actual example where trickle down economics worked and was lasting.
First off, anyone who says they can unpack the impact of economic policies with any degree of precision is lying. It is hard to imagine a more complex system with a greater number of factors and conflicting inputs than economics. That said, your implication seems to be that higher taxes are a net benefit to society. Is that in fact your contention?
Rent seeking is never pretty.
-
Show me where a tax cut actually worked and other taxes or fees weren't raised elsewhere.
Show me an actual example where trickle down economics worked and was lasting.
Just because politicians can't stop spending money doesn't mean tax cuts and supply side economic principles don't work.
-
And taxes fund those.
Yes, local property taxes and water/sewer fees fund those things. The State of Texas has little to do with it beyond oversight regulations. Those taxes and fees are even collected at the local level. Spending cuts at the state level would have some affect somewhere, just not on police, fire, drinking water, and sewer. Those are things local governments have typically taken care of. Now if the City was cutting budgets, then they would threaten to cut police and fire department funding as happens in Houston regularly. =D
-
And taxes fund those.
Show me where a tax cut actually worked and other taxes or fees weren't raised elsewhere.
You talk as if is a tax is a tax, and the only goal of cutting taxes is to cut taxes. For example, you refer to tax-funded emergency services. Are those funded by the state? The local government? Both? Doesn't it matter if localities are funding the fire departments that directly help them, versus sending tax money to the state capital?
Then you talk about tax revenues from one source being replaced by a higher tax somewhere else. That doesn't necessarily mean the tax cut "didn't work." It could mean the tax burden is now more fairly distributed, couldn't it?
-
Has anyone heard from Nick1911? Is he too busy fighting for his life to report on the hellscape that Kansas has become ??
-
I'm old enough to remember when people like charby complained that the Republican Party had too much God, and not enough fiscal conservatism. He must have got religion. :P
-
Just because politicians can't stop spending money doesn't mean tax cuts and supply side economic principles don't work.
Works great in theory and in intent, I see that, used to be a big believer of trickle down, but not so much anymore because I haven't seen it work as a lasting solution in reality.
-
First off, anyone who says they can unpack the impact of economic policies with any degree of precision is lying. It is hard to imagine a more complex system with a greater number of factors and conflicting inputs than economics. That said, your implication seems to be that higher taxes are a net benefit to society. Is that in fact your contention?
Rent seeking is never pretty.
For the most part, stop cutting taxes, balance the budget and determine what society wants as goods and services they want provided/managed by the government.
I can buy into some higher taxes are a net benefit to society, its the haves take care of the havenot. Not as in socialism, but as the haves give a little more to keep the havenots from committing violence against the havenots. I think some social welfare is cheaper than incarceration. Public schools keep the youths from running the streets during the day and hopes that they will aquire enough education to be functioning (and hopefully productive) members of society.
Also there is a lot of common good services that comes from taxes collected, you may not be directly affected by the service, but you probably still reap the benefits. One I can think of is state meat inspectors, they visit food processing places to insure the quality of the meat being produced is fit for human consumption. Another is the weights and measures folks who certify commercial scales are accurate.
I'm still mixed on corporate income taxes, for the most part I don't think entities should pay income taxes, because their payroll should be where the taxes are collected. Property taxes, yes. Sales taxes, yes. Fuel taxes, etc. That being said, I think all incentives and bonuses to people should be paid as money (and taxed as income) and not stock or deferred comp over the maximum annual 401k contribution.
If you are business owner and choose not to incorporate, that is your own fault, expected to be taxed as an employee.
I think all tax write offs should be taken away, pick a base income where there is no income taxes are collected, then a graduated level by income to whatever percentage for the top earners. Not a flat tax.
-
Yes, local property taxes and water/sewer fees fund those things. The State of Texas has little to do with it beyond oversight regulations. Those taxes and fees are even collected at the local level. Spending cuts at the state level would have some affect somewhere, just not on police, fire, drinking water, and sewer. Those are things local governments have typically taken care of. Now if the City was cutting budgets, then they would threaten to cut police and fire department funding as happens in Houston regularly. =D
They get their fair share of dollars from the state and federal government.
-
You talk as if is a tax is a tax, and the only goal of cutting taxes is to cut taxes. For example, you refer to tax-funded emergency services. Are those funded by the state? The local government? Both? Doesn't it matter if localities are funding the fire departments that directly help them, versus sending tax money to the state capital?
Then you talk about tax revenues from one source being replaced by a higher tax somewhere else. That doesn't necessarily mean the tax cut "didn't work." It could mean the tax burden is now more fairly distributed, couldn't it?
Problem with diverting income taxes to consumptive taxes is that people can find ways to get out of those consumptive taxes, even on items people need day to day. Don't like the sales tax, I'll buy online and not pay taxes, well we know that is changing with one of the biggest players now charging sales tax.
-
its the haves take care of the havenot. Not as in socialism, but as the haves give a little more to keep the havenots from committing violence against the havenots. I think some social welfare is cheaper than incarceration. Public schools keep the youths from running the streets during the day and hopes that they will aquire enough education to be functioning (and hopefully productive) members of society.
I'm not sure if that's blackmail or coercion. I don't want a society where an EBT buys my or anyone else's safety. That's what a .45 is for.
I think all tax write offs should be taken away, pick a base income where there is no income taxes are collected, then a graduated level by income to whatever percentage for the top earners. Not a flat tax.
Graduated is a nice euphemism for progressive. The person who makes $20K should pay 10%. I should pay 10%. The person who makes a bajillion gajillion dollars should pay 10%. That's all the "progression" taxes need.
-
I'm not sure if that's blackmail or coercion. I don't want a society where an EBT buys my or anyone else's safety. That's what a .45 is for.
I prefer not to have to walk around with eyes in the back of head or worry about my crap getting ripped off when I'm away from home.
Graduated is a nice euphemism for progressive. The person who makes $20K should pay 10%. I should pay 10%. The person who makes a bajillion gajillion dollars should pay 10%. That's all the "progression" taxes need.
Penalties for unreported income?
-
I prefer not to have to walk around with eyes in the back of head or worry about my crap getting ripped off when I'm away from home.
Penalties for unreported income?
The payment of protection money hasn't done anything to reduce crimes of theft. (See: Danegeld)
And Charby, what's with the desire for rent-seeking? Most of what .gov does can be done by private entities for much less $$$ and far more efficiently.
.gov needs to stick to the six things outlined in the preamble of the Constitution and leave everything else alone.
-
The payment of protection money hasn't done anything to reduce crimes of theft. (See: Danegeld)
And Charby, what's with the desire for rent-seeking? Most of what .gov does can be done by private entities for much less $$$ and far more efficiently.
.gov needs to stick to the six things outlined in the preamble of the Constitution and leave everything else alone.
Rent-seeking is that the new buzz word?
I've worked public sector my whole career dealt with contractors to do work because of labor shortages never ever been cheaper. Mostly because you can't hold them accountable and always having to spend more money on their screw ups after they left.
-
Also there is a lot of common good services that comes from taxes collected, you may not be directly affected by the service, but you probably still reap the benefits. One I can think of is state meat inspectors, they visit food processing places to insure the quality of the meat being produced is fit for human consumption. Another is the weights and measures folks who certify commercial scales are accurate.
Which is why there are NEVER any E- coli or food-borne illness out breaks, leading to food recalls?? ;/ ;/
And no, weights and measures folks simply make sure paperwork is done and that the stickers are current (meaning paid for), they are not in the butcher shop with weights checking scales, they are making sure the butcher has filled out paperwork showing that he checked his scale periodically to make sure it was accurate.
-
I prefer not to have to walk around with eyes in the back of head or worry about my crap getting ripped off when I'm away from home.
Michael Brown still beat up little old men. Ben Franklin's quote comes to mind here. Freedom is dangerous, but I'd rather be free than safe and a prisoner. If we're saying it's okay for the government to take our money and give it to feral urban youth so they don't hurt us, how is that different than mafia bent-noses collecting 20% of a shopkeeper's income every week "to protect his place from being burned down"?
Penalties for unreported income?
Sure. That includes the lower income brackets that don't report tips and such. The biggest problem our society has is that 50% of the population doesn't have any skin in the game.
In theory, I would not have a big problem with some tax money (though I would prefer it to be private charities) going to "havenots" given: It's someone who is truly down on their luck. I don't mind helping the person who lost their home in a tornado and their workplace along with it, on a temporary basis until they get back on their feet. However, it has to be someone who is trying, not someone who would rather collect welfare than work at McDonald's or pick up a shovel (or is saying, "give me money or I'll mug people"). It also has to be in a society where we are only giving 10% of the population the helping hand. When you're doling out the dole to half the population, there is a big problem that more taxes are never going to fix. If anything, they will only grow the problem.
-
Which is why there are NEVER any E- coli or food-borne illness out breaks, leading to food recalls?? ;/ ;/
And no, weights and measures folks simply make sure paperwork is done and that the stickers are current (meaning paid for), they are not in the butcher shop with weights checking scales, they are making sure the butcher has filled out paperwork showing that he checked his scale periodically to make sure it was accurate.
Nothing is 100% fail-safe.
And who is going to be chacking or processing the paperwork? How are you going to verify that scale accurate as the paperwork says it is.
-
Problem with diverting income taxes to consumptive taxes is that people can find ways to get out of those consumptive taxes, even on items people need day to day.
Firstly, that's not the only way to change tax structures. Secondly, people also find ways to avoid income tax. Thirdly, no matter who or what you tax, or how the tax is levied, or to what extent, you'll discourage people from whatever it is you're taxing. Given these three points, it's hard to find a serious argument in your above comment.
-
Nothing is 100% fail-safe.
Says the person who is arguing for more taxes and bigger govt because you can't decide how to make things perfect.
-
Firstly, that's not the only way to change tax structures. Secondly, people also find ways to avoid income tax. Thirdly, no matter who or what you tax, or how the tax is levied, or to what extent, you'll discourage people from whatever it is you're taxing. Given these three points, it's hard to find a serious argument in your above comment.
Likewise because I see your argument is all taxes are bad.
-
Works great in theory and in intent, I see that, used to be a big believer of trickle down, but not so much anymore because I haven't seen it work as a lasting solution in reality.
Since Reagan, you haven't seen any Republicans in power who believe in supply side or want it. So I am not surprised.
-
Says the person who is arguing for more taxes and bigger govt because you can't decide how to make things perfect.
Comes to regulatory, government is more accountable than private industry. You may not agree with what or how it's being regulated, but government is more accountable.
-
They get their fair share of dollars from the state and federal government.
No, they don't. Fire and police are funded locally. Water treatment and sewage are funded through fees and bonds (repaid with property taxes locally).
There is plenty of stuff to argue and debate about at the state and federal level. There is no point is plowing ahead where you know you are wrong. You make all your arguments look foolish.
-
Comes to regulatory, government is more accountable than private industry. You may not agree with what or how it's being regulated, but government is more accountable.
You are going to have to define this word "accountable" since you obviously don't define it the same way I do.
-
Hey Charby since you are cool with all this taxation and love the .gov why don't you go ahead and donate freely above and beyond what you are taxed to the government? Put your money where your mouth is.
-
Hey Charby since you are cool with all this taxation and love the .gov why don't you go ahead and donate freely above and beyond what you are taxed to the government? Put your money where your mouth is.
I already do, I voluntarily pay extra tax for a couple of the state trust funds in Iowa.
-
You are going to have to define this word "accountable" since you obviously don't define it the same way I do.
So where I live, state has an Auditor's office that can investigate if wrong doing is reported with a regulatory bureau. Auditor is elected, so not permanent state employee.
Regulatory Bureau also has the power of state code to enforce code or levy fines. Also can revoke licensure or permits. Regulated business can appeal decision, usually putative doesn't happen until 3 violation unless violation is flagrant violation.
Also businesses being regulated has a non state employee board who gives guidance to regulatory bureau, so it's not a one way street for the state.
-
No, they don't. Fire and police are funded locally. Water treatment and sewage are funded through fees and bonds (repaid with property taxes locally).
There is plenty of stuff to argue and debate about at the state and federal level. There is no point is plowing ahead where you know you are wrong. You make all your arguments look foolish.
Ours gets monies from both. Grants that are paid for from tax dollars. Remember all the Homeland Security money that got passed down?
-
Comes to regulatory, government is more accountable than private industry. You may not agree with what or how it's being regulated, but government is more accountable.
Horseshit.
How many people got fired/disciplined for the IRS targeting conservative groups ?
How many people got fired/disciplined for Fast and Furious ?
How many people got fired/disciplined at the VA ?
How many people got fired/disciplined for the Gold King Mine spill disaster ?
How many people got fired/disciplined Secret Service hiring hookers in foreign countries ?
How many people got fired/disciplined being suckass teachers ?
How many people got fired/disciplined for being cops that violate people's rights ?
Government is the LEAST accountable of anyone.
I can fire my butcher if I think he's charging me too much for thumbs. I can avoid restaurants I suspect of being less than clean. I can not use the goods or services of any private entity I wish, but I cannot avoid the government.
P.S. Taxation is Theft. And like Ben, I'm willing to help someone out for upto 6 months to get back on their feet. But I'd prefer that private organizations do it (as they ten to be more compassionate) and not impersonal .gov.
-
Horseshit.
How many people got fired/disciplined for the IRS targeting conservative groups ?
How many people got fired/disciplined for Fast and Furious ?
How many people got fired/disciplined at the VA ?
How many people got fired/disciplined for the Gold King Mine spill disaster ?
How many people got fired/disciplined Secret Service hiring hookers in foreign countries ?
How many people got fired/disciplined being suckass teachers ?
How many people got fired/disciplined for being cops that violate people's rights ?
Government is the LEAST accountable of anyone.
I can fire my butcher if I think he's charging me too much for thumbs. I can avoid restaurants I suspect of being less than clean. I can not use the goods or services of any private entity I wish, but I cannot avoid the government.
P.S. Taxation is Theft. And like Ben, I'm willing to help someone out for upto 6 months to get back on their feet. But I'd prefer that private organizations do it (as they ten to be more compassionate) and not impersonal .gov.
We can banter back and forth for eternity, I can grab instances where private industry has failed just as bad you what you listed above.
-
If I was planning on staying here, I probably would after Robert graduates. But since I'm planning on moving, probably not.
Plus, my opponent would drag my ex- out to tell everyone what a horrible human being I am.
-
We can banter back and forth for eternity, I can grab instances where private industry has failed just as bad you what you listed above.
Yes, but they CAN held to account. Either criminally or via the market...
-
Michael Brown still beat up little old men. Ben Franklin's quote comes to mind here. Freedom is dangerous, but I'd rather be free than safe and a prisoner. If we're saying it's okay for the government to take our money and give it to feral urban youth so they don't hurt us, how is that different than mafia bent-noses collecting 20% of a shopkeeper's income every week "to protect his place from being burned down"?
The whole urban youths thing is actually something I picked up recently trying to research the history of public schools in America. It actually was an argument made in several states the very early 1800s, also how poor kids would go to school for free and rich folks would pay the way for their kids and supplement the poor kids.
I was trying to decide is vouchers were a good or bad thing, should monies (or a certain %) stay in the district where a student lives if they open enroll, etc.
Did you know that by 1870 all states (ones at the time) had tax subsidized elementary schools?
Sure. That includes the lower income brackets that don't report tips and such. The biggest problem our society has is that 50% of the population doesn't have any skin in the game.
In theory, I would not have a big problem with some tax money (though I would prefer it to be private charities) going to "havenots" given: It's someone who is truly down on their luck. I don't mind helping the person who lost their home in a tornado and their workplace along with it, on a temporary basis until they get back on their feet. However, it has to be someone who is trying, not someone who would rather collect welfare than work at McDonald's or pick up a shovel (or is saying, "give me money or I'll mug people"). It also has to be in a society where we are only giving 10% of the population the helping hand. When you're doling out the dole to half the population, there is a big problem that more taxes are never going to fix. If anything, they will only grow the problem.
Would be nice if it was just a temporary handout, but realistically is there enough jobs at or above the poverty line where many of these people work to get them off entitlements? Some of these poor areas are just poor with not much hope because of past actions of the residents being screwed over several decades ago. Something like in the 1920s incomes between blacks and whites in urban areas were fairly equal, then bad things started to happen financially to the black communities by outsiders. Not violence, but predatory lending and or laws created that prevented blacks taking out mortages, etc. Called Redlining. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
Not saying it is an excuse, but it is going to take a whole lot of intervention to break the entitlement cycle, isn't going to happen overnight. You take away bennies, without a income opportunity to replace it, going to be a lot of pissed off people and a lot of violence.
Trump was touching on some of this in his campaign how we haven't fixed the urban problems.
Trust me I'm racking my brain on this, I would to see a lot more participation in the workforce and lot less entitlements, but how do you do it and not cause a lot of social unrest that ends up more costly then keeping the entitlements flowing.
-
Yes, but they CAN held to account. Either criminally or via the market...
and so can government, worse case you have to build a bulletproof case and sue.
-
and so can government, worse case you have to build a bulletproof case and sue.
Again, Horseshit.
No, even a bulletproof case and they get away with it. Plus I have to hire a lawyer and use my time and money. If I want to fire my butcher, I simply don't go there anymore. I don't have to "build a bulletproof case", or do anything else.
Even the EPA guy that pulled the plug on the mine, releasing millions of gallons of pollution, suffered no consequences.
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/10/12/gold-king-mine-epa-employee-will-not-prosecute/
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/20/epas-gold-king-mine-boss-dodged-federal-probe-by-retiring/
-
Meanwhile, there's the unwritten compliance taxes...
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21717838-republicans-and-democrats-have-been-equally-culpable-adding-rulebook-too-much?cid1=cust%2Fednew%2Fn%2Fbl%2Fn%2F2017032n%2Fowned%2Fn%2Fn%2Fnwl%2Fn%2Fn%2FNA%2F9012562%2Fn
-
Again, Horseshit.
No, even a bulletproof case and they get away with it. Plus I have to hire a lawyer and use my time and money. If I want to fire my butcher, I simply don't go there anymore. I don't have to "build a bulletproof case", or do anything else.
Even the EPA guy that pulled the plug on the mine, releasing millions of gallons of pollution, suffered no consequences.
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/10/12/gold-king-mine-epa-employee-will-not-prosecute/
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/20/epas-gold-king-mine-boss-dodged-federal-probe-by-retiring/
Want me to start replying with news stories of fed and state employees who went to prison?
-
Would be nice if it was just a temporary handout, but realistically is there enough jobs at or above the poverty line where many of these people work to get them off entitlements?
How about the 5 million blue collar jobs currently going unfilled due to the skills gap?? A lot of those pay quite well, if you are willing to actually work hard. Heck, even if you're willing to work half ass hard you can still make a living. Fill those jobs and you'll likely see a multiplier effect throughout the economy.
-
Likewise because I see your argument is all taxes are bad.
I've never said that, or anything close to it.
-
Want me to start replying with news stories of fed and state employees who went to prison?
Yes, please roll out your anecdotal proof that you are not wrong. I am sure no one can find the same for private companies.
-
How about the 5 million blue collar jobs currently going unfilled due to the skills gap?? A lot of those pay quite well, if you are willing to actually work hard. Heck, even if you're willing to work half ass hard you can still make a living. Fill those jobs and you'll likely see a multiplier effect throughout the economy.
Are these jobs logistical possible to the ones I mentioned above? There is 2000 or so jobs available where I live but unemployment rate is under 4% so they are having a hard time finding anyone within reasonable driving distance to work them. Plus if move here, your going have buy since the rentals are very full.
-
I've never said that, or anything close to it.
Came off that way.
-
Ours gets monies from both. Grants that are paid for from tax dollars. Remember all the Homeland Security money that got passed down?
1. Since it is true for yours, that must make it true for everyone?
2. The fedgov grants were not continuous and only covered specific things. The police and firefighters get pay checks from the local cities and towns. Except for the volunteers. They might get extra toys from higher levels but that doesn't change the base funding.
My point remains that cuts in state or federal funding do not affect those local services. There are lots of other things we could agree on. School funding comes to mind.
-
Came off that way.
Only to you because you are arguing for more taxes as the solution to all problems.
-
Came off that way.
OK. Let's say things in Kansas are as bad as you say, and that tax cuts (rather than tax monies being wasted on non-essentials, burdensome regulation keeping GDP growth down, etc) is the reason for it. That is actually a good problem to have, compared to the rest of the country, that struggles with too much spending and too much taxation to support the too much taxation. As we've seen in our history, it's not hard to correct the problem of too little taxation. You just trot out enough sad pandas that need tax money, and have the Left air their stories on the evening news.
-
Are these jobs logistical possible to the ones I mentioned above? There is 2000 or so jobs available where I live but unemployment rate is under 4% so they are having a hard time finding anyone within reasonable driving distance to work them. Plus if move here, your going have buy since the rentals are very full.
I don't give a tinker's damn if it's logistically easy for someone to take a job. Given the moving around I've had to do, and have been willing to do, some welfare sucking leech gets no sympathy from me if they lose their bennies because they didn't want to leave their hommies to take a job.
-
Yes, please roll out your anecdotal proof that you are not wrong. I am sure no one can find the same for private companies.
http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2016/08/former_irs_employee_sentenced.html
http://www.kmzu.com/former-federal-employee-sentenced-to-four-years-in-federal-prison-without-parole/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/former-fed-employee-fined-for-installing-bitcoin-software-on-fed-server-1485791030
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndal/pr/irs-employee-sentenced-nine-years-and-two-months-prison-leading-1-million-id-theft-tax
Here's a town that got fined by the EPA
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/north-hempstead-agrees-to-pay-epa-50g-over-fuel-tank-violations-1.12276022
A university
http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Waco--EPA-fines-Baylor-for-hazardous-waste-violations-403461026.html
-
Having ALSO worked for the .gov I never saw accountability or caring for the taxpayer or concern about wisely spending the money
In fact the attitude concerning "accountability" was more along the lines of "don't get caught" and "deny, deny, deny". There was once specific case I clearly remember where the response to a public danger that people needed to know about was "here put up these generic posters". They only cared about the liability, not somebody's life.
And just because you are A-OK with higher tax rates doesn't mean I am. You are literally telling us to bend over, take it in the ass for the poorly defined "common good" and completely ignoring the whole part about "my" good. Because the last mother*expletive deleted*ing thing I care about is the wellbeing of shitheads who don't want to work when so much of MY hard earned paycheck is seized by force, and it's doubly infuriating that it is wantonly wasted.
-
Having ALSO worked for the .gov I never saw accountability or caring for the taxpayer or concern about wisely spending the money
Weren't you a park ranger or some sort? Tell me about the budgets you commanded or had input into. :rofl:
When I was a govt contractor (operations architect) and interacting with higher level folks at Govt bureaus (director level, folks with budgets and accountability), there was specific talk about fiscal responsibility vis a vis the services we deployed. A good friend of mine (Mike Irwin knows him as well), a GS15 in the DOD, has made changes in his area of responsibility to save taxpayer money. It did not benefit him at all to make those changes, but he did so in the interest of being more responsible with YOUR tax dollars.
Chris
-
Show me where a tax cut actually worked and other taxes or fees weren't raised elsewhere.
Show me an actual example where trickle down economics worked and was lasting.
Show me a society that has taxed it's way into prosperity...
-
Show me a society that has taxed it's way into prosperity...
It's a thin line between too much and too little taxes.
-
It's a thin line between too much and too little taxes.
So how much is "just right"?
Let's start with the 23% that gets skimmed right off the top of my paycheck, federal, state, SS, FICA... Then we have property taxes, sales tax, fuel tax, excise tax, vehicle registration taxes, internet service tax, telephone tax and any number of other mandated government "fees" we have to pay. It's been several years ago but I figured up that my real tax burden was better than 60% of my income, it hasn't gone down since then.
I don't think any rational citizen can deny that for a civil society to exist some level of taxation is needed to provide for services deemed essential (fire, police, military...) but year after year we see government bloat and mission creep of things like social services and welfare taking bigger and bigger bites of our piece of the pie. Government funding of things like Planned Parenthood and handouts to illegal immigrants and innumerable other things that do not serve the public good. Fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars continues and tends to grow year after year.
How much of what I work for should I be allowed to keep? For the value returned our tax burden is way too high.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-real-world-middle-class-tax-rate-75 (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-real-world-middle-class-tax-rate-75)
-
Weren't you a park ranger or some sort? Tell me about the budgets you commanded or had input into. :rofl:
When I was a govt contractor (operations architect) and interacting with higher level folks at Govt bureaus (director level, folks with budgets and accountability), there was specific talk about fiscal responsibility vis a vis the services we deployed. A good friend of mine (Mike Irwin knows him as well), a GS15 in the DOD, has made changes in his area of responsibility to save taxpayer money. It did not benefit him at all to make those changes, but he did so in the interest of being more responsible with YOUR tax dollars.
Chris
That's a relatively small percentage of >GS13 employees. I saved the taxpayers money as well nearly every year I was in the management ranks, then some SESer took the budget surplus and spent it somewhere else, because coming in under budget only gets you a smaller budget for the next FY.
You can be a conscientious employee and still be overwhelmed by the overall system.
-
Here's a town that got fined by the EPA
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/north-hempstead-agrees-to-pay-epa-50g-over-fuel-tank-violations-1.12276022
A university
http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Waco--EPA-fines-Baylor-for-hazardous-waste-violations-403461026.html
So where did the money for those fines come from ?? The pockets of the bureaucrats that did wrong or from the taxpayers that entrusted them to do the right thing?
-
I don't give a tinker's damn if it's logistically easy for someone to take a job. Given the moving around I've had to do, and have been willing to do, some welfare sucking leech gets no sympathy from me if they lose their bennies because they didn't want to leave their hommies to take a job.
I've moved also for jobs, guess what I had the means (as in money and support structure) to do so. I'm going to assume you did also.
How does one move when they have no means to do so, let alone make a couple trips for interviewing and then physically moving. Yes I want to see the able bodied welfare recipients working also, but how to you get them to the jobs or get the jobs to them. The ones who want to hang with their hommies aren't going to move not matter what, actually I wonder how many of those are actually getting a welfare check directly? Probably living or flopping between places that have an welfare recipient there and leaching off them.
-
So how much is "just right"?
Let's start with the 23% that gets skimmed right off the top of my paycheck, federal, state, SS, FICA... Then we have property taxes, sales tax, fuel tax, excise tax, vehicle registration taxes, internet service tax, telephone tax and any number of other mandated government "fees" we have to pay. It's been several years ago but I figured up that my real tax burden was better than 60% of my income, it hasn't gone down since then.
I don't think any rational citizen can deny that for a civil society to exist some level of taxation is needed to provide for services deemed essential (fire, police, military...) but year after year we see government bloat and mission creep of things like social services and welfare taking bigger and bigger bites of our piece of the pie. Government funding of things like Planned Parenthood and handouts to illegal immigrants and innumerable other things that do not serve the public good. Fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars continues and tends to grow year after year.
How much of what I work for should I be allowed to keep? For the value returned our tax burden is way too high.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-real-world-middle-class-tax-rate-75 (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-real-world-middle-class-tax-rate-75)
I don't know what just right is, it's different opinion for everyone.
-
So where did the money for those fines come from ?? The pockets of the bureaucrats that did wrong or from the taxpayers that entrusted them to do the right thing?
Town can from their coffers, or their insurance if they have it
Baylor is a private school, so it came from their budget, probably has some state and federal dollars in it, not sure how Texas budgets towards private universities.
-
OK. Let's say things in Kansas are as bad as you say, and that tax cuts (rather than tax monies being wasted on non-essentials, burdensome regulation keeping GDP growth down, etc) is the reason for it. That is actually a good problem to have, compared to the rest of the country, that struggles with too much spending and too much taxation to support the too much taxation. As we've seen in our history, it's not hard to correct the problem of too little taxation. You just trot out enough sad pandas that need tax money, and have the Left air their stories on the evening news.
I see where you're coming from.
-
It's a thin line between too much and too little taxes.
I guess we disagree. I don't think it is a thin line at all. That is mainly because there is wide disagreement on what exactly we all want Govt to do. If you take it down to the minimum to maintain defense and basic sovereignty, the "too little taxes" line is way down low.
Govt is NOT accountable to the taxpayer. Govt is inefficient and gets more inefficient the bigger it gets. The more stuff you add to the list of things the FedGov does, the "too little taxes" line goes up even higher. It isn't linear. You can look at FedGov spending historically and see a lot of useful information. Before the income tax was implemented, Congress refused to pass the Prohibition amendment as sin taxes were a major source of taxes. Once they had income taxes, they had no problem with it. I think you can also look at FedGov spending once LBJ's Great Society stuff started welfare and when Medicare was started.
I think the number of things Govt CAN do it near infinite. If we cannot control spending and the scope of what Govt does, no amount of taxes will be sufficient.
-
I think the number of things Govt CAN do it near infinite. If we cannot control spending and the scope of what Govt does, no amount of taxes will be sufficient.
My quoted statement was piling on to what fistful said. This is where I am coming from on most of this thread. IMO, Govt as an entity is always trying to grow. The number of people who want a piece of the power and/or money will always be more than there is to go around. Govt bureaucrats do not get ahead in their careers by saying NO. Knowing that, my opinion is the ONLY way to force Govt efficiency and accountability is to limit the funding side. If money is there, it WILL be spent.
Edit: I would add that this is just human nature. If someone is using resources for which they do no work or don't have to pay for, they have no incentive to be careful with the use of those resources. Our government bureaucracy is worse since the system is set up to incentivise bureaucrats to spend more money, not less. Yes, it could be done better, but there is no incentive to do that.
-
Town can from their coffers, or their insurance if they have it
Baylor is a private school, so it came from their budget, probably has some state and federal dollars in it, not sure how Texas budgets towards private universities.
I think Baylor gets very little if any money from the State for normal funding. It came up recently since Texas passed a law for concealed carry in schools last session. Since Baylor was private, they had options to bypass that law which public universities did not have. If they were taking state funding, they would not have been able to do that.
-
How does one move when they have no means to do so, let alone make a couple trips for interviewing and then physically moving.
This is a bigger barrier than many realize. It's one thing to travel around looking for work when you are currently employed or only recently unemployed. It's another entirely when you've been out of work for years, have no assets, and no means to get a job locally (think of rust belt towns, Appalachia, etc). It becomes virtually insurmountable.
Chris
-
Since fines for regulatory violations were brought up earlier, I thought I would post something I heard about today. It was mentioned that EPA fines were used for this also.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/24/report-justice-department-extorts-companies-to-fund-left-wing-activists/
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/holders-bank-of-america-settlement-includes-payoffs-to-democrat-groups/
Sort of undermines the whole accountability argument.
-
My quoted statement was piling on to what fistful said. This is where I am coming from on most of this thread. IMO, Govt as an entity is always trying to grow. The number of people who want a piece of the power and/or money will always be more than there is to go around. Govt bureaucrats do not get ahead in their careers by saying NO. Knowing that, my opinion is the ONLY way to force Govt efficiency and accountability is to limit the funding side. If money is there, it WILL be spent.
Edit: I would add that this is just human nature. If someone is using resources for which they do no work or don't have to pay for, they have no incentive to be careful with the use of those resources. Our government bureaucracy is worse since the system is set up to incentivise bureaucrats to spend more money, not less. Yes, it could be done better, but there is no incentive to do that.
I'm not asking the government to do everything, I just think there are things that are better handled by the government than private business, and I think private business can do many things better than the government.
I also think there is some services provided by government that can make our lives better/safer, even though we may not directly benefit from the service.
-
I've moved also for jobs, guess what I had the means (as in money and support structure) to do so. I'm going to assume you did also.
How does one move when they have no means to do so, let alone make a couple trips for interviewing and then physically moving. Yes I want to see the able bodied welfare recipients working also, but how to you get them to the jobs or get the jobs to them. The ones who want to hang with their hommies aren't going to move not matter what, actually I wonder how many of those are actually getting a welfare check directly? Probably living or flopping between places that have an welfare recipient there and leaching off them.
Unless distances are really long it isn't that costly to go for the interviews, and if you're even a little resourceful you can make it happen. Plus most companies will reimburse that expense. Same goes for moving. But, let's just assume those employers are too cheap to pay for that. If it means getting them off welfare I'm ok with helping them out with taxpayer money so they can get to the interview and move to the new location. 4-6 months of them not on welfare will probably more than cover that expense.
-
Unless distances are really long it isn't that costly to go for the interviews, and if you're even a little resourceful you can make it happen. Plus most companies will reimburse that expense. Same goes for moving. But, let's just assume those employers are too cheap to pay for that. If it means getting them off welfare I'm ok with helping them out with taxpayer money so they can get to the interview and move to the new location. 4-6 months of them not on welfare will probably more than cover that expense.
Be interesting to see a map of areas of high welfare recipients and areas of employment demand of wages high enough to get off welfare.
-
I'm not asking the government to do everything, I just think there are things that are better handled by the government than private business, and I think private business can do many things better than the government.
I also think there is some services provided by government that can make our lives better/safer, even though we may not directly benefit from the service.
Nearly everything done by the Federal Government would be better done by someone else.
Either private enterprise where someone directly bears the cost of messing up, or local government where people are better able to hold agents accountable.
So, even if "the government" would do or better, the Federal Government would not.
-
Nearly everything done by the Federal Government would be better done by someone else.
Either private enterprise where someone directly bears the cost of messing up, or local government where people are better able to hold agents accountable.
So, even if "the government" would do or better, the Federal Government would not.
Privatize the military?
-
Privatize the military?
What is it about statists that give them so much trouble with comprehension?
What part of "nearly" do you fail to grasp?
-
Privatize the military?
Larry stole my snark about "nearly", but other than the Navy, the states actually HAVE provided the military for much of our history.
I don't know if it would still work, and the necessity of a unified command structure may prove too much for such an arrangement now, but it's not outside the realm of experience.
Of note, I'm not advocating for the devolution of the Army to the states (aside: at least portions of the Air Force would, by necessity stay with the Federal Government for the same reasons as the Navy). In my comment, I was specifically thinking of the military as an exception that fell under the "nearly" that I stated.
-
I am sure private enterprise could do "Military" for less money. The liability issues would be a big question. However, cheaper and more efficient aren't primary goals of the military and contracting out National Defense has not gone well historically. And from a Constitutional standpoint, that is one of the primary roles of our FedGov. And then there is all the other stuff about fighting for a corporation versus your country.
We have used privateers in our past who ended up being pretty effective at the role of damaging the British merchant fleet. They didn't attack the British military fleet too much.
When it comes down to it, a lot of the supporting roles around the military have been privatized.
-
We have used privateers in our past who ended up being pretty effective at the role of damaging the British merchant fleet. They didn't attack the British military fleet too much.
Well, when the Letter of Marque and Reprisal doesn't specify, you go after the low hanging fruit.
-
Well, when the Letter of Marque and Reprisal doesn't specify, you go after the low hanging fruit.
Well, of course. Use the mercenaries where you can be assured they will fight. Against an international merchant nation like Britain at the time, it was effective.