Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Simon

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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?

 

1-  I totally sympathize with those youngsters.  Skyrocketing property values is one of the major reasons I settled in Texas after leaving Hawaii.

2-  I'd have been perfectly happy with the value of the property staying right where it was when I bought it since this is a primary residence and I plan on staying here until I croak.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

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.

 

“The tax which will be paid for the purpose of education is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests, and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.”

---Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect, and author (1743-1826)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

"Some of you were kind during the reception and asked me if this bothered me to have been rated this way based on what Donald Trump said, I said of course not. I earned my spurs on the battlefield ... And Donald Trump earned his spurs in a letter from a doctor."

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/overrated-general-mattis-zings-trump-n-y-charity-gala-n1068481

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, death tribble said:

pray for Doc Democracy and myself. The Brexit deal goes before parliament tomorrow in a rare Saturday sitting with a lot of MPs liable to say no.

We are in a no win situation. If the deal passes, Boris Johnson is a statesman. If it does not, CHAOS 

Good Luck, DT. I would to say that Boris Johnson is better than Trump, but I can't tell a lie that big

CES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, death tribble said:

pray for Doc Democracy and myself. The Brexit deal goes before parliament tomorrow in a rare Saturday sitting with a lot of MPs liable to say no.

We are in a no win situation. If the deal passes, Boris Johnson is a statesman. If it does not, CHAOS 

 

It needs to go through.  Elections have consequences and if the government so openly flouts the will of the people there will indeed be chaos.

 

Once they realize the government will ignore their votes whenever its convenient things are going to get ugly.

 

It'll be bumpy, but the people of the UK have dealt with far worse problems and come out in great shape.

 

Best of luck, gents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

 

It needs to go through.  Elections have consequences and if the government so openly flouts the will of the people there will indeed be chaos.

 

Once they realize the government will ignore their votes whenever its convenient things are going to get ugly.

 

It'll be bumpy, but the people of the UK have dealt with far worse problems and come out in great shape.

 

Best of luck, gents.

Brexit wasn't done as a voting measure. It was done as a poll. Dave Cameron just said we're going to do this thing that the poll wants us to do. And then he bailed instead of seeing it through and dropping it on May, and then Johnson. Both of these people have reputations for being stupid in different ways.

 

This is the reason that some of the Brits and Scots that I have seen online have gone back to calling Cameron a person who has sexual congress with pigs.

CES 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, csyphrett said:

Brexit wasn't done as a voting measure. It was done as a poll. Dave Cameron just said we're going to do this thing that the poll wants us to do. And then he bailed instead of seeing it through and dropping it on May, and then Johnson. Both of these people have reputations for being stupid in different ways.

 

This is the reason that some of the Brits and Scots that I have seen online have gone back to calling Cameron a person who has sexual congress with pigs.

CES 

 

Odd that the BBC refers to it as a vote and not a poll.

 

Why is the UK leaving?

A public vote - or referendum - was held on Thursday 23 June 2016, to decide whether the UK should leave or remain.

Leave won by 52% to 48%. The referendum turnout was very high at 72%, with more than 30 million people voting - 17.4 million people opting for Brexit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours 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.  dean S

 

"no representation without taxation." Fair indeed. But yeah, they'd still find ways around it. <sadface>

 

Dean Shomshak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours 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.  dean S

 

"no representation without taxation." Fair indeed. But yeah, they'd still find ways around it. <sadface>

 

Dean Shomshak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

 

Odd that the BBC refers to it as a vote and not a poll.

 

Why is the UK leaving?

A public vote - or referendum - was held on Thursday 23 June 2016, to decide whether the UK should leave or remain.

Leave won by 52% to 48%. The referendum turnout was very high at 72%, with more than 30 million people voting - 17.4 million people opting for Brexit.

 

Well, part of the problem with the "vote" or "poll" or "referendum" or whatever you want to call it (under any label it was expressly defined as not legally binding) is that the pro-Brexit campaign led by Boris Johnson emphasized misinformation (to put it politely) about the United Kingdom's financial relationship with the European Union, the consequences to the country of separating from the Union, and the ease with which that could be achieved. There was also a sharp division in pro- and anti-Brexit voting between England, with the majority of the UK's population, and its other semi-autonomous regions, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

 

However, if public opinion needs to be respected, what are we to make of polls between the Brexit referendum and today, which has shown a pronounced bout of "buyer's remorse" shifting public support against Brexit? Should that be ignored because it isn't part of a formal referendum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

You hire your military and I will hire mine?  T

 

Like I said before... See Afghanistan, the Central African Republic and other Third World anarchies. Pay taxes to the bureaucracy, or pay taxes to the warlord... which taxes you have no say in at all, and may include your daughter.

 

Establishing central authority that is willing and able to maintain a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence is the first, absolutely necessary (though not sufficient) requirement for a society in which prosperity is widely shared instead of concentrated to a predatory few. The taxes necessary to keep this state function will always be less than the loss from giving it up. I would like this fact to be part of high school civics classes.

 

Dean Shomshak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using dollars as the primary measure of benefit and responsibility also carries its own risks. Some factors that should be considered aren't so easily quantified. Take for example, Donald Trump's defense for why he's sending American troops to bolster Saudi Arabia's security at the same time he's pulling troops out of Syria: "The Saudis are paying us." Besides putting the lie to Trump's stated motivation for bring troops home, this effectively makes the American military for sale, and redefines American military service as a potentially mercenary venture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

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.

 

Education, which was brought up before, may be a case study. Private schools get to pick their customers. Public schools in the US do not. My understanding is that no matter what a child's physical or mental handicaps, which may make educating the child very expensive, public schools must take them.

 

(Though OTOH some months back I heard an NPR story about Texas public schools having a set budget for special needs students, and if the state or a district gets more such students than were budgeted for, parents get hit up for the difference -- which can be impossible for the parents. But I may be misremembering or misunderstanding what I heard. Do our resident Texans have any knowledge of this?)

 

Dean Shomshak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

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.

 

Education, which was brought up before, may be a case study. Private schools get to pick their customers. Public schools in the US do not. My understanding is that no matter what a child's physical or mental handicaps, which may make educating the child very expensive, public schools must take them.

 

(Though OTOH some months back I heard an NPR story about Texas public schools having a set budget for special needs students, and if the state or a district gets more such students than were budgeted for, parents get hit up for the difference -- which can be impossible for the parents. But I may be misremembering or misunderstanding what I heard. Do our resident Texans have any knowledge of this?)

 

Dean Shomshak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

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.

 

Education, which was brought up before, may be a case study. Private schools get to pick their customers. Public schools in the US do not. My understanding is that no matter what a child's physical or mental handicaps, which may make educating the child very expensive, public schools must take them.

 

(Though OTOH some months back I heard an NPR story about Texas public schools having a set budget for special needs students, and if the state or a district gets more such students than were budgeted for, parents get hit up for the difference -- which can be impossible for the parents. But I may be misremembering or misunderstanding what I heard. Do our resident Texans have any knowledge of this?)

 

Dean Shomshak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

 

It needs to go through.  Elections have consequences and if the government so openly flouts the will of the people there will indeed be chaos.

 

Once they realize the government will ignore their votes whenever its convenient things are going to get ugly.

 

It'll be bumpy, but the people of the UK have dealt with far worse problems and come out in great shape.

 

Best of luck, gents.

 

I think "needs" is a strong word.  We have had a national vote since the referendum which elected the current Parliament. We have no tradition of direct democracy in the UK and the vote in the referendum was advisory, the criteria for change would have been higher if it was to be legally binding on the Government, probably 60% at the least, potentially 60% of eligible voters, which would equate to 75% of the 74% that turned out.

 

Always tricky to talk democracy as it often is vague and undefined in the places you need it most.

 

It is almost the point of Parliamentary democracy to ignore the vagaries of public opinion as the Parliament has the time to become informed and to make decisions on behalf of the electorate, not as the electorate demands.  Obviously they also have to balance this with being elected again.

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DShomshak said:

Education, which was brought up before, may be a case study. Private schools get to pick their customers. Public schools in the US do not. My understanding is that no matter what a child's physical or mental handicaps, which may make educating the child very expensive, public schools must take them.

 

This is true. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1990) specifically guarantees a "Free and Appropriate Public Education" to all students regardless of disability. 

 

My daughter, for example, is globally developmentally delayed due to seizures (and the accompanying medications) she experienced for about the first year and a half of her life. She's nine years old and in fourth grade, where she receives speech therapy, occupational therapy, vision therapy, and physical therapy services. She's nonverbal and can't do a lot of things that your typical nine-year-old can do--not yet, anyway. But she's learning, and her teachers and therapists have everything to do with that. 

 

We couldn't do for her everything that her school does, and we certainly couldn't afford to provide those services for her ourselves with what I make.

 

Which is the whole point of IDEA in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, csyphrett said:

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

 

I'm probably too close to the system to be a good judge, since my bias leans to "modify what we have" rather than "build from whole cloth".  As well, we stick to what we know, and my area is income tax (mainly small business and personal), not sales taxes, for example.

 

One disturbing trend in the Canadian tax system has been micro-credits - very low dollar amounts, but you still need receipts and the tax authority still needs to review a sample of claims.  The economists also largely detest them, although as much or more because they pretend to be tax cuts when they are really program spending, and do not get the scrutiny they should as a consequence.  Trying to incent certain behaviours (for example, use of public transit) with millions of people making tiny little claims (like 15% of your bus pass costs), that they must then support (send in each month's expired pass, and your receipt from purchasing it) is highly inefficient.

 

But they make great soundbites so the politicians love them.  And anyone who thinks they will save a few bucks is all over them.  Thinking about the overhead costs?  Good luck!

 

I am on the bandwagon that Canada desperately needs an independent expert committee to review the tax system from the ground up.  Many groups share that view but, unfortunately, the government, and our finance department, does not.

 

15 hours ago, BoloOfEarth said:

 

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). 

 

So your property doubles in value, and you pay half as much tax as the young couple that moves in next door - and lives in an identical house with an identical value.  Not what I would describe as "fair taxation".

 

@cycphrett - I also find it a lot easier to critique an existing or proposed rule than to draft my own 😕

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I

 

@csyphrett - I also find it a lot easier to critique an existing or proposed rule than to draft my own 😕

I understand that. I don't always agree with you, Hugh, but you are the closest thing to an expert on taxes and taxation systems that we have on the board. I respect that.

CES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hugh mentioned the inefficiency of the Canadian tax micro-credits. When The Economist talks aout taxes, they often mention this factor. For instance, consumption taxes are highly regressive but also highly efficient -- I gather that means there's high certainty of the tax being collected, and relatively low cost to the collection. Income taxes, OTOH, can be made progressive but collection and enforcement are relatively expensive and the super-rich easily find ways to evade them.

 

Andrew Yang talks about a Value Added Tax, which is supposedly a form of consumption tax, but the one time I tried reading an explanation I didn't understand much of it.

 

The Economist also favors a land tax, which I gather is not the same as a property tax, but in ways I did not understand at all. So there are lots of ways for governments to collect taxes as the user fees of civilization. That's about as far as my understanding goes... but it's enough to get suspicious when someone claims its actually simple, whether it's simply outrageous or there's a simple answer.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

Dean Shomshak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's common in the US to use a consumption tax attached to gasoline and diesel fuel to fund road repairs and construction. This was generally useful in the past, but breaks down with hybrids and electrics. I used to gas up my 1999 Chevy Malibu about every two weeks. I'd put in about 12 gallons each time. Five years ago, I replaced it with a Toyota Prius, and I gas it up on average about every four weeks. I put in about 8 1/2 gallons on average. I'm driving about the same number of miles, which means that I'm paying less per mile in consumption taxes. If I had a plug-in electric vehicle, I'd pay no taxes for roads in my state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DShomshak said:

Hugh mentioned the inefficiency of the Canadian tax micro-credits. When The Economist talks aout taxes, they often mention this factor. For instance, consumption taxes are highly regressive but also highly efficient -- I gather that means there's high certainty of the tax being collected, and relatively low cost to the collection. Income taxes, OTOH, can be made progressive but collection and enforcement are relatively expensive and the super-rich easily find ways to evade them.

 

Andrew Yang talks about a Value Added Tax, which is supposedly a form of consumption tax, but the one time I tried reading an explanation I didn't understand much of it.

 

The Economist also favors a land tax, which I gather is not the same as a property tax, but in ways I did not understand at all. So there are lots of ways for governments to collect taxes as the user fees of civilization. That's about as far as my understanding goes... but it's enough to get suspicious when someone claims its actually simple, whether it's simply outrageous or there's a simple answer.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

Dean Shomshak

The general criticism of the VAT is that it's regressive in effect, that is, it tends to have a disproportionate impact on the poor and lower middle class, since they have less discretionary income, savings and investments, and therefore almost all of their income winds up getting taxed since it's all spent.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...