Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[ScottishFox]

1 hour ago, Zeropoint said:

That you would only be interested in paying for the education system when it directly benefits you and yours is disgustingly selfish. Would you also argue that if you don't drive, none of your taxes should go to roads

 

1-  It's more my perceived value of the horrible public school system than it is selfishness.  Additionally, if I have my child educated privately - I still have to pay for public schooling.  If I educate my child at home I still have to pay for public schooling.  If the school system was cost effective and producing high quality results I would be more willing to pay in even when my children weren't in attendance.  And where I really lose it on the involuntary tax front is taking homes out from underneath our senior citizens who have worked their whole lives to pay them off.  Property taxes on a fixed income are VERY painful.

 

2-  I would of course pay for roads even when not driving on them since everything I consume depends on them being in place.  I do like usage-based taxing for things like roads which is partially implemented in some states.  Drive more - damage more road - pay more.

 

3-  I would also strongly disagree that looking after my family as a priority makes me "disgustingly selfish".  I also happen to donate to St. Judes children's hospital on a regular basis and for decent sums of money.  That, however, is voluntarily done.  It's not that I'm disgustingly selfish.  It's that I'd like to decide where my money goes - even when I'm giving to help complete strangers.

[Pariah]

24 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

It's that I'd like to decide where my money goes - even when I'm giving to help complete strangers.

 

If that's truly the problem, then there's an easy solution. Run for public office. Then you can be the guy that makes those decisions. Get yourself elected, and then you can decide where the money goes.

 

If that's not to your liking, you can always become a lobbyist or campaign organizer or something similar. Be the guy who whispers in the ear of the guy who makes those decisions.

 

(Of course, both of those options depend on your ability to convince a bunch of other people that your outlook on the subject is valid. That's an entirely different conversation, I suppose.)

 

Otherwise, you're pretty much left in the same boat as the rest of us. We don't like taxes, especially when we feel that our money isn't being used with the way we would like it to be. But we also realize, as Mick Jagger once said, that you can't always get what you want. We try to put in office those people who will spend our tax money in a way that benefits society as much as possible, realizing that no single person has all the answers.

 

And sometimes, we may even be wrong.

[ScottishFox]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I can live in an apartment if I pay rent to the landlord.  I can leave and not pay rent.  If I refuse to pay, and refuse to leave, men with guns will come and take me to jail if I persist in not paying my "voluntary" rent.  I cannot politely decline to pay the rent and continue to reside in that home.

 

Why is choosing to leave the apartment or pay the rent required to remain in that apartment different from choosing to leave the country (and/or renounce citizenship) or remain in the country (and/or retain citizenship) and pay the taxes required to remain in the country?

 

This is a terrible analogy.  You didn't have to rent a place.  You could live with your parents or friends or get your girlfriend to pay for the place or buy a place outright or choose one of several other options.  You don't HAVE to rent a place to stay out of legal trouble.  You DO have to pay taxes.

 

And just so we're clear.  I'm not opposed to taxation.  I'm opposed to involuntary taxation.  Possibly the only tax I'm irrationally opposed to is property taxes on primary residences.  The thought of stealing homes out from underneath our elderly population who have worked their whole lives to pay off a home is grotesque to me in ways I can't articulate very well.  It invalidates the concept of property entirely.  You don't get to own anything.  You're just renting it from Uncle Sam.  At the very least exempt primary residences for people over 65 so they have some chance of retiring in the home they paid off.

 

The tax burden on the average person has been steadily increasing for decades and our government here in America spends like there is no tomorrow.  23 trillion in the hole and we're not even slowing down.

George Bush doubled the national debt during his 8 years.

So did Obama.

Anyone think Trump will be the one to bring spending under control?  I don't.

 

In the slightly altered words of Dave Chappelle:  I don't trust these MF'ers (with my money).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ternaugh]

1 hour ago, ScottishFox said:

 

1-  It's more my perceived value of the horrible public school system than it is selfishness.  Additionally, if I have my child educated privately - I still have to pay for public schooling.  If I educate my child at home I still have to pay for public schooling.  If the school system was cost effective and producing high quality results I would be more willing to pay in even when my children weren't in attendance.  And where I really lose it on the involuntary tax front is taking homes out from underneath our senior citizens who have worked their whole lives to pay them off.  Property taxes on a fixed income are VERY painful.

 

2-  I would of course pay for roads even when not driving on them since everything I consume depends on them being in place.  I do like usage-based taxing for things like roads which is partially implemented in some states.  Drive more - damage more road - pay more.

 

3-  I would also strongly disagree that looking after my family as a priority makes me "disgustingly selfish".  I also happen to donate to St. Judes children's hospital on a regular basis and for decent sums of money.  That, however, is voluntarily done.  It's not that I'm disgustingly selfish.  It's that I'd like to decide where my money goes - even when I'm giving to help complete strangers.

 

Looking at the website of the private school that I attended for grades 2 through 8, it's currently $275 to register, plus a $140 technology fee, and they strongly suggest that all report cards and standardized achievement test results are included with the application (space is limited; the school is "highly selective"). Tuition is currently $7600 per year. Oh, and they expect a parent to volunteer some time for the school, as well. They do produce high quality results, however.

 

[Doc Democracy]

ScottishFox, I do apologise, I was not looking to set you up to defend your political system, I expect many here would castigate my system (for different reasons).  I am fascinated with the tax question though, it was what captured my attention and is probably fundamental to the political arguments in democratic systems.  If a nation state is to exist with all the trappings of a modern nation state then everyone needs to contribute to how that system is funded.  There needs to be an agreement (which we come to politically) on what it means to live in the country, what the responsibilities of those citizens will be and what the responsibilities of the state will be to those citizens.  There a LOT of hidden costs in running a country or some government at some time (just to look good) would have slashed government spending without anyone noticing a fall in services provided.

 

It is glib to say "if you don't like it, go elsewhere" (and I hate being glib, so apologies for that) but it is used for all kinds of things and I think that buying into the tax system of a nation is fundamental to deciding to live there.

 

I think any Government needs some ability to spend as it wants (part of the benefit of being voted into office) but I think there could be some way of the Government giving people options on what they want to support with their taxes.  I think that would have to be limited to spending decisions though, real spending like roads, education, health etc and not in providing tax breaks and subsidies.  It would even have been a decent way for Trump to raise the cash for his wall, I am sure lots of his supporters would have dedicated any flexible elements to the tax they provide to building that wall. 

 

7 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

1-  It's more my perceived value of the horrible public school system than it is selfishness.  Additionally, if I have my child educated privately - I still have to pay for public schooling.  If I educate my child at home I still have to pay for public schooling.  If the school system was cost effective and producing high quality results I would be more willing to pay in even when my children weren't in attendance.  And where I really lose it on the involuntary tax front is taking homes out from underneath our senior citizens who have worked their whole lives to pay them off.  Property taxes on a fixed income are VERY painful.

 

I educate my child privately, I accept that it costs extra and I made a decision to opt out of public/free education with that in mind.  I do not seek to recoup the tax that might go towards education because supporting the public sector is part of my deal with the State. As Ternaugh points out, to get high quality education you need to spend more cash. At $7,600 a year, under a system where you pay when your kids are in school, I do not think most parents could handle that additional cost on top of their baseline taxes.  I found an interesting CNBC article from last year looking to outline how much Americans pay in tax each year. It varies by state, highest in New Jersey ($19,977) lowest in West Virginia ($6,837).  Adding in high quality education would seriously skew even New Jersey.  If you spread the cost of 13 years of (high quality) education over a 50 year working life, then you would get just under $2,000 a year, every year.  You "might" be able to afford that for one kid but if you have three or four it could cripple you.  The statistic that support ScottishFox however is that " Nationally, the most recent data indicates $11,762 is spent on public education per student."  That is quite fascinating too broken down by State.  What ARE they doing with all that money and, with more resource per pupil than Ternough's school, why are they not all high quality??

 

The State has a real problem with current health of the people.  Our financial systems were set up to support folk for a few years after they retired - that was the statistics.  people would retire about 65 and they would be dead by 70.  That is no longer the case.  People might expect to live 10 or 20 years beyond retirement now and they will not have paid in anywhere near enough to cover that kind of time.  The State provides for those people in all kinds of infrastructure ways which retired folk still use but might not pay towards.  The State needs to decide if and how it collects money from those people so that they contribute to their continued use of the system.  Here, in the UK, we tax pensions if they are above a certain threshold, its complicated but hits high earners and leaves most pensions untouched.  We also pay a community charge - a contribution towards the infrastructure of the local area - lighting, drainage, cleaning, roads, parks etc.  It leans towards the principle of, if you use it, you pay for it. 

 

Doc

[csyphrett]

12 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

 

That was a very different time and governments hadn't exactly earned the trust of the people.  Tens of millions of people had been killed by their own governments and it was only natural for people to be suspicious of a government program that wanted a non-trivial cut of their paychecks for benefits that wouldn't materialize for decades. 

 

Also, the average life span back in those days was in the 50s.  People weren't living to an average of 80 years of age so a program designed to start paying benefits right as you were about to fall over dead probably wasn't especially attractive.

 

Slamming laws into place directly against the will of the public doesn't exactly scream liberal democracy.

It was either that or let people die. No one had the money to save because it was the great depression. Surviving businesses weren't going to help their employees.  The biggest opposition was inside the government that had already mismanaged the banking system and was trying to prevent a pull out of the depression because they didn't want to help anyone at all. It's very similar to how republicans opposed the ACA when it was based on their plan in the first place.

CES 

 

[Hermit]

So... listening to the Democratic Debate from last night...

 

only 3/4 through.

 

Anyone else see it? thoughts?

[TrickstaPriest]

I was just going to share this and ask what people thought of the fallout (or how accurate this guy's information is).  It's a 'beau' video on the fallout of the Turkey/Kurd situation.  Pretty hyperbolic, but I can stand to see that he is upset.  So the real question is... how accurate is that read on what's happened so far?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDRSXmd9LAQ

 

[ScottishFox]

1 hour ago, Hermit said:

So... listening to the Democratic Debate from last night...

 

only 3/4 through.

 

Anyone else see it? thoughts?

 

Caught some of the highlights.  Thought Bernie came across genuine and relatable.

 

Tulsi did OK, but not as well as I would have liked.

 

Overall - not feeling the "it" factor from any of the candidates so far.  I'll probably vote Tulsi at this point and see how it shakes out.

[Iuz the Evil]

Likely to do my research and vote according to my philosophical and economic value systems. Zero chance I vote for Trump in the general as he's antithetical to both areas and I think he's done a terrible job as POTUS, but I'm in California so that's irrelevant. 

 

In the primary, probably Biden. He's pretty moderate, and I'm not loving the race to the left in the primary. I get it, but pandering to the hard core base turns me off. I want a POTUS who will be president of ALL Americans, and this is just partisan red meat. Talk to me about wealth inequity and the working middle class. Our crumbling infrastructure and your plans to address it. Give some attention to homelessness and food insecurity. I want to hear about healing the rifts with our staunchest foreign allies. Heavy focus on race, LGBTQ rights, healthcare, gender issues, and "trump bad" is nice and all, I like those things, but "meh". I'm interested in some better articulation of policy on issues that impact the majority, not interested minority sections of the general population. Do that stuff, sure. But get elected first. 

[Hugh Neilson]

23 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

 

This is a terrible analogy.  You didn't have to rent a place.  You could live with your parents or friends or get your girlfriend to pay for the place or buy a place outright or choose one of several other options.  You don't HAVE to rent a place to stay out of legal trouble.  You DO have to pay taxes.

 

If you emigrate to the Cayman Islands, you do not have to pay taxes.

 

If I want to live with my parents, then they need to own a residence, be alive and want me living there.  If they are not happy with me living there, they can evict me just as an unrelated landlord does.  And my parents either have to pay the rent or pony up the $$ to own that house, so your "solutions" only pass the buck to someone else..

 

My friends (girl or otherwise) can punt me out too, and THEY either have to pay the landlord or pony up the $$ to buy the place at well.

 

I could sleep under a bridge or in the park, but then I get arrested for vagrancy.   I could walk far enough out of the city that no one notices me sleeping in the forest, so I don't get arrested.  When the mercury dips to -40 degrees, sleeping outside is a pretty poor option.  I guess I have to find somewhere that is not so cold - leave the location I do not like and find one I do.

 

But I have walked away from the location where I would have to pay the freight to sleep, and gone somewhere else.  Just as, if I do not want to pay the taxes imposed by the nation where I live, my choice is to find another nation whose tax policies are more to my liking, and go live there.  Or get involved politically and work to change my own country's tax policies, as Pariah suggests.  And listen to all the people who disagree with your approach voice their views of how you have messed up the country.

 

23 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

And just so we're clear.  I'm not opposed to taxation.  I'm opposed to involuntary taxation.  Possibly the only tax I'm irrationally opposed to is property taxes on primary residences.  The thought of stealing homes out from underneath our elderly population who have worked their whole lives to pay off a home is grotesque to me in ways I can't articulate very well.  It invalidates the concept of property entirely.  You don't get to own anything.  You're just renting it from Uncle Sam.  At the very least exempt primary residences for people over 65 so they have some chance of retiring in the home they paid off.

 

Do they not use the resources of the community to which they pay those property taxes?  Or should they just get a free ride, and those under 65 should pay for the resources they consume?  Let's assume that 20% of the properties in your municipality are occupied by seniors.  Are you OK with your property taxes rising 25% so we can collect the same money to pay for the same services, and they can ride for free?

 

There are two basic questions of any system of taxation:

 

 - how much do we collect?  That needs to be enough to pay for the services we provide.

 

 - how do we share the burden among all those we collect from?

 

The sad fact is that pretty much everyone wants services from the government which exceed the value of the taxes they pay to the government.  Many can't seem to make that simple connection that more, or better, government services requires paying more taxes.  I'm always amazed in the early spring when the phones at city hall ring off the hook with complaints about proposals to increase property taxes, and how slow and crappy the snow removal services are.

 

That doesn't change the reality that government debt is a serious problem.  Whether your objective is more and better services, or lower taxes, the money going to debt payments doesn't help achieve your objectives.  But what happens when we go to "voluntary taxes" and no one volunteers to contribute to interest or principal payments of the debt?  Do we just hope the lenders will be OK capitalizing their interest forever, or does someone who did not WANT to get FORCED to pay those costs?

[DShomshak]

I liked seeing Biden show some fire with his "I have actually done this" speech. He is certainly the most experienced candidate, and I think experience counts for a lot.

 

Kudos to Bernie for honesty in forthrightly saying that his Medicare For All system raises taxes on the middle class, and calling out Warren for not being equally forthright. Warren in general did not impress me.

 

Mayor Pete sounded ready for the Oval Office as a person who understands the gravity of the job, and he speaks well too. After Trumpalumpagus' word salad, being able to speak not just in sentences but in paragraphs should count for something.

 

Steyer's vanity candidacy disgusts me and he gave me no reason to change my view.

 

Klobuchar made good points about realism and her Midwest background. Bluntly, only about 16 states are in play in the upcoming election, and many of them are in the Midwest. Candidates shouldn't worry too much about pleasing California or Connecticut or, conversely, Alabama or Mississippi: Those electoral college votes are certain no matter who runs or what policy they espouse. Play to Pennsylvania and Michigan.

 

Kamala Harris never really stood out for me. Neither did, um, I forget. I've heard interesting things elsewhere from Andrew Yang, but he wasn't given much time.

 

Tulsi Gabbard seemed unhinged in her "Regime Change In Syria" rant. The only regime American troops were changing was the Islamic State. Obama tried to get further involved in the Syrian civil war; the Republican Congress blocked him, though I believe it was for the wrong reasons; as far as I can tell, he stuck by that and no American soldiers shot at any Syrian troops. Even if she didn't seem to e living in a parallel universe, I'd still reject her extreme military pullback views.

 

All in all, the debate showed several people I'd be happy to see in the Oval Office.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

 

[ScottishFox]

17 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Do they not use the resources of the community to which they pay those property taxes?  Or should they just get a free ride, and those under 65 should pay for the resources they consume?  Let's assume that 20% of the properties in your municipality are occupied by seniors.  Are you OK with your property taxes rising 25% so we can collect the same money to pay for the same services, and they can ride for free?

 

There are two basic questions of any system of taxation:

 

 - how much do we collect?  That needs to be enough to pay for the services we provide.

 

 - how do we share the burden among all those we collect from?

 

I feel confident that senior citizens are not actively using the public school system which accounts for the large bulk of property taxes in most areas.  I'd add that after paying property taxes for decades that maybe they've earned a reprieve for their golden years.  I know this sounds bizarre, but I'd like to see senior citizens keep their homes instead of being forced into foreclosure or reverse mortgages because their governments can't keep spending under control or come up with more creative ways of collecting the money they need.

 

Thanks to the recent spike in property values I've seen my property taxes go up about 75% with exactly ZERO change in the services I'm receiving.  I'm sure my benevolent and thrifty government will return the surplus to me any day now.

 

There are more basic questions that I feel you've omitted:

1-  Can the government provide said services more efficiently?

2-  Should the government be providing said services at all?

 

With very few exceptions I want my government to govern and self-interested free market entities to do the providing of goods and services at levels that meet government standards.  You can't be the financier and the auditor at the same time.

 

17 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

The sad fact is that pretty much everyone wants services from the government which exceed the value of the taxes they pay to the government.  Many can't seem to make that simple connection that more, or better, government services requires paying more taxes.  I'm always amazed in the early spring when the phones at city hall ring off the hook with complaints about proposals to increase property taxes, and how slow and crappy the snow removal services are.

 

I completely agree on your first part.  People want more for their dollar than they're willing to pay for.  They are self-interested and that is a good thing.  We wouldn't be where we are if people didn't constantly demand things to be better, faster, cheaper, more innovative than they were 10 minutes ago.  I would like to see the government work on being more cost effective and more innovative than they have been in the past.  Sometimes the answer is raise taxes and some times it's do a better job with the money you have. 

 

Medicare fraud rates are many multiples higher than what you see in private insurance and it is on pace to be the single largest line item on the government budget within a few years.  Do taxes need to go up or would bringing the fraud rate down to levels that are maintained by Blue Cross and Blue Shield be more appropriate?

 

Our war on poverty for the last 5+ decades has a total bill of 27+ trillion dollars and last I looked - we still have a lot of poor people and we'll probably have even more in the near future as AI and advanced automation annihilate a few low skill job sectors.

 

The second part is easily understood.  Property taxes are painfully high.  Especially with property values going up in recent years.  Many people are pinched - HARD - and further upward bumps in property tax could literally force them out of their homes.  So these people naturally don't want to pay even more in property taxes.  I know I don't.  I'm already paying close to double what I was paying when I bought my house and that's not even 10 years ago.  Complaining about the slow and crappy snow removal services makes sense if the removal services, are in fact, slow and crappy.

 

Americans will spend more money on federal and local taxes than they will on clothing, food and shelter in 2019.  At some point the total tax burden has to be considered too high.

[ScottishFox]

On 10/16/2019 at 4:46 AM, Doc Democracy said:

ScottishFox, I do apologise, I was not looking to set you up to defend your political system, I expect many here would castigate my system (for different reasons).  I am fascinated with the tax question though, it was what captured my attention and is probably fundamental to the political arguments in democratic systems.

 

I've thoroughly enjoyed the discussion and minus being called evil once it's been very civil for modern discourse.

 

Also, great post - I would have liked it more than once if I could have.

[Hermit]

2 hours ago, DShomshak said:

I liked seeing Biden show some fire with his "I have actually done this" speech. He is certainly the most experienced candidate, and I think experience counts for a lot.

 

Kudos to Bernie for honesty in forthrightly saying that his Medicare For All system raises taxes on the middle class, and calling out Warren for not being equally forthright. Warren in general did not impress me.

 

Mayor Pete sounded ready for the Oval Office as a person who understands the gravity of the job, and he speaks well too. After Trumpalumpagus' word salad, being able to speak not just in sentences but in paragraphs should count for something.

 

Steyer's vanity candidacy disgusts me and he gave me no reason to change my view.

 

Klobuchar made good points about realism and her Midwest background. Bluntly, only about 16 states are in play in the upcoming election, and many of them are in the Midwest. Candidates shouldn't worry too much about pleasing California or Connecticut or, conversely, Alabama or Mississippi: Those electoral college votes are certain no matter who runs or what policy they espouse. Play to Pennsylvania and Michigan.

 

Kamala Harris never really stood out for me. Neither did, um, I forget. I've heard interesting things elsewhere from Andrew Yang, but he wasn't given much time.

 

Tulsi Gabbard seemed unhinged in her "Regime Change In Syria" rant. The only regime American troops were changing was the Islamic State. Obama tried to get further involved in the Syrian civil war; the Republican Congress blocked him, though I believe it was for the wrong reasons; as far as I can tell, he stuck by that and no American soldiers shot at any Syrian troops. Even if she didn't seem to e living in a parallel universe, I'd still reject her extreme military pullback views.

 

All in all, the debate showed several people I'd be happy to see in the Oval Office.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

 

 

For me,  I can see why Warren would want to avoid giving the Press that quick Sound bite of "Taxes will go up for the middle class " while the "but you you will SAVE much more than that and here's why..." stuff is cut off. But yes, it did not look good on her. She's got the lead in polls but it's hers to lose. She's still my pick by a narrow margin.

 

Bernie was fantastic, particularly for a guy who underwent surgery. He came across with sincerity, passion, and good humor. The part where he joked with Biden when Biden was talking of talking of Putin while gesturing Bernie's way came off good for both men. Their age is under fire, and maybe despite their differences they feel a common challenge there.

 

Kamala Harris seemed really fixated on shutting Trumps' twitter down and trying to get Warren on board with it. I'm not sure what she was going for there. It's like she was trying to make Warren look bad, but picked a really WEIRD angle to do it with.

 

I rather like Andrew Yang. He's very different in his approaches, but he has some good points... honestly, I don't see him as a president (though I'd be good with it), but after this he needs to be on some sort of position that advises the president. To quote an over used term, he thinks outside the box.

 

I actually like what Steyer was saying, but I have strong concerns he'd not be able to walk the talk.

 

Of all the centrists, Mayor Pete is the one I like the best.  I don't agree with him on some matters but I would trust his intelligence and education to be advantages.

 

I completely agree when you say "All in all, the debate showed several people I'd be happy to see in the Oval Office."

I'd take any of over Trump, and at least four of them I'd consider a win beyond merely 'the lesser of evils'.

I cannot say how tired I am of voting based on the lesser of evils.

 

 

 

[Zeropoint]

21 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The sad fact is that pretty much everyone wants services from the government which exceed the value of the taxes they pay to the government.  Many can't seem to make that simple connection that more, or better, government services requires paying more taxes.

 

I want services from the government. In fact, I want MORE services from the government. I also happen to be perfectly aware that this will require the government to collect more tax revenue (and/or reduce military spending by being less enthusiastic about killing people overseas).

 

However, I'm also aware that the very rich and big business are not paying their fair share of the tax burden. We, as a nation, do not need to raise the tax burden on the middle class or the poor to raise revenue. We can get all the money we need by raising taxes on people who can easily afford it--and who, as demographic groups, were paying far more tax back in the '50s that the right likes so much.

[megaplayboy]

News program the other day reported that the Trump administration has had an 80% turnover rate for key positions (Cabinet secretaries and undersecretaries, key WH staff, etc.).  All in less than three years.  To say that's unprecedented would be an unprecedented understatement.  It is indicative of a, well, something that rhymes with "hit show".  

[megaplayboy]

24 minutes ago, Zeropoint said:

 

I want services from the government. In fact, I want MORE services from the government. I also happen to be perfectly aware that this will require the government to collect more tax revenue (and/or reduce military spending by being less enthusiastic about killing people overseas).

 

However, I'm also aware that the very rich and big business are not paying their fair share of the tax burden. We, as a nation, do not need to raise the tax burden on the middle class or the poor to raise revenue. We can get all the money we need by raising taxes on people who can easily afford it--and who, as demographic groups, were paying far more tax back in the '50s that the right likes so much.

I'd be willing to let millionaires, billionaires and large corporations off the hook for paying ANY taxes...provided they were willing to sign a waiver of their rights to contribute to political campaigns or PACs/political nonprofits, make public statements thereto, or hire lobbyists to push for specific legislation.  Seems like a fair trade to me.  

[TrickstaPriest]

20 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

News program the other day reported that the Trump administration has had an 80% turnover rate for key positions (Cabinet secretaries and undersecretaries, key WH staff, etc.).  All in less than three years.  To say that's unprecedented would be an unprecedented understatement.  It is indicative of a, well, something that rhymes with "hit show".  

 

This and his twitter are the whole grounds of why I find people's evasions and equivocations of him and others to be contemptible.  We have unfettered access to his thoughts and words, and his clear indications of his competency.  Every time I hear someone I know say "oh that's just slandering him" I have to point to the two greatest indicators we have in modern history that he's a complete mess.  The latest debacles of his foreign policy behavior is of no surprise to me.

 

17 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

I'd be willing to let millionaires, billionaires and large corporations off the hook for paying ANY taxes...provided they were willing to sign a waiver of their rights to contribute to political campaigns or PACs/political nonprofits, make public statements thereto, or hire lobbyists to push for specific legislation.  Seems like a fair trade to me.  

 

I would disagree because they would find a way around any such agreement.

[Hugh Neilson]

4 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

 

I feel confident that senior citizens are not actively using the public school system which accounts for the large bulk of property taxes in most areas.

 

Really?  None of those educated people provide goods or services the seniors value?  The ability of those educated persons to be gainfully employed, and not supported  by the government, does not alleviate any burden which could otherwise fall to them?  Their social security and medicare costs are not paid by the taxes those younger people pay with the income they are better able to earn because they are educated?

 

I suggest that you are really arguing for an end to publicly-funded education, such that all education will be privately paid for by the parents of those kids.  That allows the rich (who can pay for their kids to be educated) a significant advantage over the poor (who cannot afford to pay for their kids to be educated).  Education is a significant contributor to social  and economic mobility.

4 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

I'd add that after paying property taxes for decades that maybe they've earned a reprieve for their golden years.  I know this sounds bizarre, but I'd like to see senior citizens keep their homes instead of being forced into foreclosure or reverse mortgages because their governments can't keep spending under control or come up with more creative ways of collecting the money they need.

I'm 53 years old.  Why should I pay taxes to fund social security and medicare that I am not using right now?  Why are the seniors who were affluent enough to acquire and retain homes entitled to a special break that is not shared with seniors from lower economic circles who have been unable to purchase a residence, and must pay rent instead?  Your analysis of the issue seems far from complete.

 

And how old are "seniors"?  What makes 65 the magic number, especially with the extent to which life expectancies have increased over the decades?

4 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

Thanks to the recent spike in property values I've seen my property taxes go up about 75% with exactly ZERO change in the services I'm receiving.  I'm sure my benevolent and thrifty government will return the surplus to me any day now.

What prevents you from cashing out, taking your gains and moving to an area with lower housing costs and property taxes?  I can't speak to what services you are receiving, or where the $$ go, but I suggest it is also possible you were not fully funding the services you received 75% ago.

 

4 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

There are more basic questions that I feel you've omitted:

1-  Can the government provide said services more efficiently?

2-  Should the government be providing said services at all?

 

With very few exceptions I want my government to govern and self-interested free market entities to do the providing of goods and services at levels that meet government standards.  You can't be the financier and the auditor at the same time.

 

Now we are addressing the spending side.  The tax system is more about dividing the costs of government spending among the citizenry than it is about setting the spending levels.  If we halve the services and halve everyone's tax rates, I do not expect many people to be a lot happier.

 

There are a lot of government-funded items which will not happen in the private sector.  Will we each hire someone to clean the snow off the part of the road in front of our own houses, and rely on everyone else doing the same?  Will we each chip in to build a new road and put in traffic lights?  You hire your military and I will hire mine?  There are also many who would claim that setting "government standards" is just as much a violation of the free market principals as having the government provide the services themselves.  Maybe I am OK with a greater fire risk if it means I pay less for my house (and never mind that it's right next to your house, and putting you at greater fire risk as well).  Why do you need special licensure to be a medical doctor?  Caveat Emptor!  Laissez-Faire!!

 

Yes, some extreme examples, but look at the pushback for, say, minimum wage laws or other employment standards, or workplace safety.

 

No question on the need for more efficient spending, but we still have to divide the burden of paying that spending, whatever level it is set at.

 

53 minutes ago, Zeropoint said:

However, I'm also aware that the very rich and big business are not paying their fair share of the tax burden. We, as a nation, do not need to raise the tax burden on the middle class or the poor to raise revenue. We can get all the money we need by raising taxes on people who can easily afford it--and who, as demographic groups, were paying far more tax back in the '50s that the right likes so much.

 

"fair share" is a pretty subjective term.  Most people think they should pay less, or at least  no more, and others should pay more, or certainly no less.  I suspect residents of impoverished third world countries would think virtually every North American could easily afford to pay more.  It is very much a relative question.  Back in the '60s, rates were - well, as George Harrison sang, "that's one for you, nineteen for me".  I do not consider 95% tax fair.

 

A lot of people think it is more fair to tax consumption (e.g. sales tax) or wealth (e.g. estate tax; property tax) than to tax income.  Others think income is the more appropriate basis.  But they will argue over what should be "income" and what should be deductible from that income.  There are a ton of complexities, and dozens or hundreds of different viewpoints.

[Lord Liaden]

I'm always concerned when the issue of "efficiency" of private sector versus public sector is raised. I'm concerned because those two sectors have different priorities and different accountability. The priority of the public sector is to serve its citizens, and the success with which they do so is judged by those citizens through the electoral process. The priority of the private sector is to make a profit for those who own parts of a business or company, and it is to those people that they answer. When I've seen governments unload responsibility for public services, such as transportation or utilities, to the private sector, what invariably follows is either a rise in the cost of those services to citizens living where their delivery is more costly, or the curtailment of those services to those areas altogether whether or not the communities affected depend on them. The private sector's "efficiency" is derived not primarily through working harder or smarter, but -- and I realize this wording is harsh -- exploiting their less profitable customers to a greater degree, or else abandoning them. About the only way that I've seen this pattern offset is for governments to provide tax breaks or subsidies to either their affected citizens or to the companies providing the services. So in the end the government is still using tax dollars to deliver those services, albeit indirectly, and with much less control of spending priorities.

[Hugh Neilson]

Solid point, LL, and a very real issue we (both you and I) see in Canada, where we have very large population centres, and large regions  with very low population density.

 

Would a private post office continue daily mail delivery in small towns or rural locations?  Even our crown corporation has cut back service to some more remote locations.

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

7 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

Thanks to the recent spike in property values I've seen my property taxes go up about 75% with exactly ZERO change in the services I'm receiving.  I'm sure my benevolent and thrifty government will return the surplus to me any day now.

 

Another "relativity" point

 

How many young couples who live in the same area as you, and are scrimping and saving to accumulate a down payment for their own first house, feel ever so sorry at your terrible misfortune in realizing a 75% return on your investment in your own home, while they watch the prices rise further out of their own reach, and their rent rises as their landlord increases them to obtain a reasonable return on his own real estate value?

[csyphrett]

Hugh, I seem to remember you're an accountant. Is that right? How would you do taxes?

CES 

[BoloOfEarth]

16 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

Thanks to the recent spike in property values I've seen my property taxes go up about 75% with exactly ZERO change in the services I'm receiving.  I'm sure my benevolent and thrifty government will return the surplus to me any day now.

 

This makes me glad I live in Michigan, where (at least AIUI) the Headlee Amendment and Proposal A limit the amount property taxes can be increased from year to year.  Again AIUI, property taxes can only go up by the lesser of the inflation rate or 5% per year, until the property is sold (at which point the new owner would begin paying taxes based on the property's current state equalized value, which is half the property's  cash value).