OT - Politics

Page 9 of 15  


I'm just wondering why you think any of the silly examples are analogous to a serious example.
We've damned near reached a perceived need for universal college education, anyway, which tends to explain why a great many college juniors are educated about to the same level as high school seniors 50 years ago. It do seem to make business types joyous to announce that their receptionist has an MS in Computer Science, or some such true business need (such as the MBA).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

I just wondered how far you think that responsibility goes. Your answer tells me that, while you said government "is responsible for fulfilling the public's mandate for desired services or functions," you don't really believe it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just Wondering wrote:

And therein lies the problem. The public has somehow gotten the notion that government-provided services are "free" because there's no direct charge for them.
Nobody presents it as "are you willing to pay x thousand dollars a year every year with the price rising with inflation in order to get this service?" No, it's always "free this" and "free that".
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

And how do you know the public has this perception? Ask you neighbors, most everyone knows that their tax check goes to pay for any and all public largesse.....
Regrettably you as well understate annual cost increases, once the Gov. is involved it usually exceeds inflation considerably i.e medical costs, school tuition/costs, judicial etc....The giant Gorilla in most Government closets....... Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

What they don't understand is that more largesse is going to cost them more taxes. They assume that some program somewhere that they don't like can be cut to make room for it. But they don't agree on what program to cut so no programs get cut and taxes go up.

--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Who is the ephemeral "they" that doesn't know any of this costs money? I don't know anyone who doesn't realize that, with the exception of a couple of mentally ill people. And yes, almost everyone realizes that more "largesse" as you guys love to call it, will cost them more taxes. Thus there's a never ending search for not only doing more, but doing it more effectively and efficiently, something that bureaucracy tends to make very, very difficult, especially when the clerks have politicians stepping all over their toes with new, and overly complex, regulations on a weekly basis.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Here in the Albany NY area that doesn't seem to be true. There must be at least a hundred thousand people that must be mentally ill. Of course, most of them don't pay much in taxes. Clerks are clerks. Whatever the directive is, they enforce it. That is the way it should be. Politicians don't make laws, regulations etc. Our elected officials do. Did you ever notice that almost all of our elected officials have law degrees? That should tell us something. Gov. Spitzer, a great AG.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hank wrote:

Huh? When did "elected officials" cease to be "politicians"?

--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

C'mon John.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hank wrote:

If you think that "politicians" means something other than "elected officials" you're sufficiently out of touch with reality that there's no point in wasting more time on you.
<plonk>
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

"Politics" taken from "poli" or "poly", meaning many, and "tics", meaning bothersome blood-sucking vermin.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just Wondering wrote:

While I'd consider that a mistake and it would lead to either runaway pricing(taxes) and /or rationing(competition is required to keep prices in check, albiet under the staus quo it rarely raises it head). But if the public so chooses then it behooves the Gov. to fullfil their biding. A Gov. that ignores the wishes of the public either rules with force or doesn't rule long.

Is there a theme here<G>? Lets assume that the public indeed (foolish or otherwise) so desired these things and was willing to pay the tax to make it happen, would you prefer a Gov. that ignored the will and desire of the populous? Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod & Betty Jo wrote: <SNIP>

There are two issues here:
1) Is the "public" willing to go through the proper legislative process to achieve its desires? In the case of the Feds, this ought to be a Constitution Amendment. The answer is typically a resounding "no", because the "public" rarely speaks with one voice and would almost never be able to build the 2/3 consensus required. i.e., The minority (relatively speaking) of the population wants what it wants and is more than willing to skip the niceties of doing so legally.
2) There is a problem with just who is "willing to pay the tax". In pretty much all cases, the burden to do this falls on a very small portion of the population. Approximately 70% of Federal taxes are today paid by *10%* of the taxpayers. What all such proposals thus come down to is that people as a whole want things that most of them will never have to pony up for. Call this what you like (wealth redistribution, socialism, theft, etc.) it all boils down to a single inarguable reality: The many fleece the few, call it "charity" and thereby justify what is essentially a dishonest act.
(Ref: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 )
So, yes, the Feds at least should say "no" to such proposals. States and municipalities have far wider latitude to do such things since at least issue 1) above is not in play (though 2) remains a problem).
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I notice that proponents of this theory [conveniently] never tell you that those poor, poor, over-taxed 10% already OWN 70% of the wealth (or whatever number is in vogue by whatever particular group that loves to grind this ax) . Bring on the Flat Tax and maybe we can put this argument to bed.
--
Dave in Houston



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

income, whether $10/year or $10 billion/year, and it should not, IMO!
What would appeal to me is the expiration of all special treatments, and possibly the imposition of a luxury tax on some set of specified items (thinking of gas-guzzling hummers).
Congress is way out of line with special privileges, and the IRS with their obfuscation in legalese of good intentions. I could not possibly go and do my own income taxes now without the experience of the past 37 years.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

Define "gas guzzling hummer" and see how long it takes for the automakers to come up with something that does the same thing but doesn't meet the definition.

--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

Do you remember 1992 and the imposition of the "luxury tax" on yachts? Designed to punish (oops, afford the opportunity give back to the country) the rich and well-to-do? Net effect? An entire US industry was bankrupted and moved offshore. Same thing with added tax to luxury automobiles.
These kind of things always have unintended consequences and seldom garner the funds that their advocates claim.
This class-envy stuff is going to kill the economy. We are already at a point where 10% of wage earners are paying 60% of all income taxes but only earn 42% of all income. Now, what is this about not paying their "fair share"?

What are you defining as special privileges?

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree about the unintended consequences. The wealthy will find a way. That does not make it right. Trying to save some oil was not something that in hindsight the American public wanted. Now we have $90/barrel oil and a raidly devaluing dollar, with vastly increased inflation just around the corner.

Huh? If someone earns $10/hr, should he pay the same percentage of income in taxes as someone earning $100/hr? Or $1000/hr? Would that be fair?

I thought there were a few instances of Congress and the IRS giving some very narrowly delineated groups of people or businesses very big breaks on their taxes.

I take as much advantage of the tax laws that I am allowed, but sometimes feel a little guilty that I get some some income on which I pay only 15%, while I am really in a far higher tax bracket. And I am some ways away from the AMT (I hope).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

guilt.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

The rest of the world also has $90/barrel oil so I don't see what that has to do with "a raidly devaluing dollar, with vastly increased inflation just around the corner"

Any system based in "give us money or we will confiscate your goods and property and arrest you" is unfair. There is no such thing as a "fair" tax system. A single rate system at least has the benefit of being _simple_.

Sometimes very narrowly delineated groups of people or businesses have special concerns that need to be addressed if the system is to appear to be "fair".

--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.