Azalin Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 Yeah, I was wondering how much would need to be cut in order to balance this out. Start by doing away with the unnecessary agencies; the ones that are redundant, like Health & Human Svcs or Dept of Education. Each state has it's own equivalent - why do we need to fund redundant agencies existing at the federal level? Any state that I've lived in has had it's own welfare and unemployment agencies as well. I'm sure there's plenty of other such examples too. I always come back to the fact that America has so much wealth and so many resources, yet there's still people without roofs over their head, and food in their stomachs. It doesn't make a lick of sense. So generally speaking, I tend to support a progressive tax system, and social safety nets. But if neither of those are fixing things for the lower classes in terms of opportunities and basic necessities, I'll need to keep an open mind about the various flat tax ideas. At the very least, I guess, I might be paying less, depending on the number selected, but that ends up making me feel a tad selfish. Remember that the federal govt has had nothing to do with providing those resources or generating that wealth - people exercising their freedoms and living as they choose is what's generated the wealth, not government at any level. Every penny that any government (fed/state/local) owns has been taken in the form of some kind of tax or fee from citizens who worked to earn it. If you're feeling a little selfish for wanting to keep more of what you earn, then you're allowing your public servants to guilt trip you into it. We've spent trillions of dollars in an effort to eliminate poverty since Johnson's Great Society, and we've not reduced the percentage of Americans in poverty - in some cases, we've increased it. If that is the case, should we continue to carry on when the only apparent benefit is to make us feel less guilty? see the link - I was going to link the Census Bureau data, but this is condensed and easier to dig through: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
Tiberius Posted January 17, 2016 Author Posted January 17, 2016 Remember that the federal govt has had nothing to do with providing those resources or generating that wealth - people exercising their freedoms and living as they choose is what's generated the wealth, not government at any level. Every penny that any government (fed/state/local) owns has been taken in the form of some kind of tax or fee from citizens who worked to earn it. If you're feeling a little selfish for wanting to keep more of what you earn, then you're allowing your public servants to guilt trip you into it. We've spent trillions of dollars in an effort to eliminate poverty since Johnson's Great Society, and we've not reduced the percentage of Americans in poverty - in some cases, we've increased it. If that is the case, should we continue to carry on when the only apparent benefit is to make us feel less guilty? see the link - I was going to link the Census Bureau data, but this is condensed and easier to dig through: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States Azalin, the government plays a fundamental role in generating our prosperity. Government is the foundation of our civilization providing the stability, order and security that allows our citizens the freedom to be creative and ambitious. From public health, to the courts that enforce some form of regular and fair commerce and stability in business, to the infrastructure that moves goods and services, to the US Dollar which is the money of the world. This is not to mention research and development, funding important private sector industries and being a market for other goods and services. The government is also one of the major employers in the nation and through it's progressive tax system ensures that our consumer driven economy--consumer spending drives 2/3of of all economic activity--functions for the benefit of the majority of our citizens. It's too bad that the government is being judges simply by it's war on poverty, seriously, the government is trying to help the least ambitious, least skilled, least well brought up group in the nation and things are not going perfect. Who would of thought? Poverty is no where near as bad as it use to be for the average poor person. But poverty has not ended. The fact of the matter is the government cannot provided every child with a wholesome nurturing environment but social programs do help with that to a point. A parent that gets food stamps has one less major worry in their life and that helps children. Cruz wants to take away millions of peoples health care now to pay for his tax cuts. How is that going to help the poor? It's not. The war on poverty may not have been won but it has accomplished making life easier for many many poor people and that is not a bad thing.
Tiberius Posted January 17, 2016 Author Posted January 17, 2016 I looked up the department of education budget and what that department does just for the heck of it: http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html A lot more important than I thought. Since our schools are funded by local property taxes the Ed department is the great equalizer. There would be a lot of schools out there that would simply be out of business if the federal funds stopped. It would radically increase inequality of opportunity in the nation. And the pell grants and other college loans and such would dry up too.
DC Tom Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 Azalin, the government plays a fundamental role in generating our prosperity. Government is the foundation of our civilization providing the stability, order and security that allows our citizens the freedom to be creative and ambitious. From public health, to the courts that enforce some form of regular and fair commerce and stability in business, to the infrastructure that moves goods and services, to the US Dollar which is the money of the world. This is not to mention research and development, funding important private sector industries and being a market for other goods and services. The government is also one of the major employers in the nation and through it's progressive tax system ensures that our consumer driven economy--consumer spending drives 2/3of of all economic activity--functions for the benefit of the majority of our citizens. It's too bad that the government is being judges simply by it's war on poverty, seriously, the government is trying to help the least ambitious, least skilled, least well brought up group in the nation and things are not going perfect. Who would of thought? Poverty is no where near as bad as it use to be for the average poor person. But poverty has not ended. The fact of the matter is the government cannot provided every child with a wholesome nurturing environment but social programs do help with that to a point. A parent that gets food stamps has one less major worry in their life and that helps children. Cruz wants to take away millions of peoples health care now to pay for his tax cuts. How is that going to help the poor? It's not. The war on poverty may not have been won but it has accomplished making life easier for many many poor people and that is not a bad thing. You know what's ridiculous, though? Cross-reference those programs with other agencies'. On example: the $150M or so Education dedicates to three different Native American education programs (incl. Inuits and Hawaiians). That's alongside several others (about ten, last time I checked) at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Do you really think we need that duplication? Think maybe $100M or so could be saved by rationalizing those programs? Generally, that's what people are talking about when they talk about "smaller government." Reducing the ridiculous duplication of effort across agencies.
keepthefaith Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 Azalin, the government plays a fundamental role in generating our prosperity. Government is the foundation of our civilization providing the stability, order and security that allows our citizens the freedom to be creative and ambitious. From public health, to the courts that enforce some form of regular and fair commerce and stability in business, to the infrastructure that moves goods and services, to the US Dollar which is the money of the world. This is not to mention research and development, funding important private sector industries and being a market for other goods and services. The government is also one of the major employers in the nation and through it's progressive tax system ensures that our consumer driven economy--consumer spending drives 2/3of of all economic activity--functions for the benefit of the majority of our citizens. It's too bad that the government is being judges simply by it's war on poverty, seriously, the government is trying to help the least ambitious, least skilled, least well brought up group in the nation and things are not going perfect. Who would of thought? Poverty is no where near as bad as it use to be for the average poor person. But poverty has not ended. The fact of the matter is the government cannot provided every child with a wholesome nurturing environment but social programs do help with that to a point. A parent that gets food stamps has one less major worry in their life and that helps children. Cruz wants to take away millions of peoples health care now to pay for his tax cuts. How is that going to help the poor? It's not. The war on poverty may not have been won but it has accomplished making life easier for many many poor people and that is not a bad thing. You mention the least ambitious.... There is a slice of our population that chooses poverty. They choose not to finish high school, they start families they cannot or choose not to support, when given a work opportunity they screw that up by being unreliable or putting forth a lousy effort. They choose a public assistance alternative. Governments often respond by improving benefits for these folks, putting no limits on the length of time they can draw upon them and then the politicians who support these programs ask for their votes. This group of people we are not helping. We are perpetuating the lifestyle. We are rewarding irresponsible and lazy behavior at the expense of others. What this group of people needs are incentives to get off the dime and help in doing so. One form of help could be as simple as letting them know that there are limits to benefits and that the government is not going to help beyond a reasonable point and that they will have to turn to family and private orgs for help beyond that. An Amish or similar lifestyle is always an option. We are a better society the more we can limit the number of people on the government dole. We are a better society the less taxation is imposed. We are a better society employing as many people as possible in a growing private economy. We are a better society when the policies imposed by government are as evenly imposed as possible. We are a better society when government support is more narrowly focused on those truly in need.
Tiberius Posted January 17, 2016 Author Posted January 17, 2016 You mention the least ambitious.... There is a slice of our population that chooses poverty. They choose not to finish high school, they start families they cannot or choose not to support, when given a work opportunity they screw that up by being unreliable or putting forth a lousy effort. They choose a public assistance as possible in a growing private economy. We are a better society when the policies imposed by government are as evenly imposed as possible. We are a better society when government support is more narrowly focused on those truly in need. I'd try and put together some form of governments works project to try and get people working. Welfare is pretty bare minimum so I'd just leave it. I think the military does wonders for the young people that join, perhaps some sort of civilian like program that could take in a large number of young people not ready for college with no job skills and get them doing something useful So my problem with the welfare system is that it doesn't do enough to get those that to do and see more and unproven themselves and opportunity to do so. You know what's ridiculous, though? Cross-reference those programs with other agencies'. On example: the $150M or so Education dedicates to three different Native American education programs (incl. Inuits and Hawaiians). That's alongside several others (about ten, last time I checked) at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Do you really think we need that duplication? Think maybe $100M or so could be saved by rationalizing those programs? Generally, that's what people are talking about when they talk about "smaller government." Reducing the ridiculous duplication of effort across agencies. Yes, for sure it isn't perfect. But I wouldn't toss out the baby with the bath water
starrymessenger Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 Its not rocket surgery. Wasting money through administrative inefficiency and duplication is not good. Subsidizing a permanent sub population of morons living off the fat of the land is not good. Providing the underprivileged with assistance and opportunity is good - for everyone.
DC Tom Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 Yes, for sure it isn't perfect. But I wouldn't toss out the baby with the bath water Do you think it's something that should be addressed?
starrymessenger Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 Just for my information, has Bernie Saunders proposed a 90% net income tax?
B-Man Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 Just for my information, has Bernie Saunders proposed a 90% net income tax? He did initially, but (of course) it changes off and on Bernie Sanders: A 90% tax rate sounds fine to me,.................................... Bernie Sanders sat down with CNBC’s John Harwood for an interview Bernie Sanders Backs Off From Support For A 90 Percent Tax Rate http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/11/16/3722465/sanders-90-percent-tax-rate-debate/
starrymessenger Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 He did initially, but (of course) it changes off and on Bernie Sanders: A 90% tax rate sounds fine to me,.................................... Bernie Sanders sat down with CNBC’s John Harwood for an interview Bernie Sanders Backs Off From Support For A 90 Percent Tax Rate http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/11/16/3722465/sanders-90-percent-tax-rate-debate/ I've got no dog in this fight but if he said that (whether he took it back or not) he is not a serious person and he deserves to be whipped. We don't live in Russia.
/dev/null Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 I've got no dog in this fight but if he said that (whether he took it back or not) he is not a serious person and he deserves to be whipped. We don't live in Russia. Yet
Azalin Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 Azalin, the government plays a fundamental role in generating our prosperity. Government is the foundation of our civilization providing the stability, order and security that allows our citizens the freedom to be creative and ambitious. From public health, to the courts that enforce some form of regular and fair commerce and stability in business, to the infrastructure that moves goods and services, to the US Dollar which is the money of the world. This is not to mention research and development, funding important private sector industries and being a market for other goods and services. The government is also one of the major employers in the nation and through it's progressive tax system ensures that our consumer driven economy--consumer spending drives 2/3of of all economic activity--functions for the benefit of the majority of our citizens. It's too bad that the government is being judges simply by it's war on poverty, seriously, the government is trying to help the least ambitious, least skilled, least well brought up group in the nation and things are not going perfect. Who would of thought? Poverty is no where near as bad as it use to be for the average poor person. But poverty has not ended. The fact of the matter is the government cannot provided every child with a wholesome nurturing environment but social programs do help with that to a point. A parent that gets food stamps has one less major worry in their life and that helps children. Cruz wants to take away millions of peoples health care now to pay for his tax cuts. How is that going to help the poor? It's not. The war on poverty may not have been won but it has accomplished making life easier for many many poor people and that is not a bad thing. I appreciate the civility of your response, but I disagree with most of what you're saying. While there's plenty that the federal government can do in terms of enforcing standards and offering assistance, I believe that much of what they do is unnecessary because there are many government departments in each state that already provide specific forms of assistance that people need. We just don't need the redundancy. With regard to "generating prosperity", what exactly do the feds do? Lower taxes in order to lessen the burden placed on business, both large and small? Provide Enterprise Zones, in order to foment a the creation of stronger local economies in depressed areas? Increase the amount of low-interest loans for enterprising entrepreneurs? Reduce regulatory compliance in order to make starting and running a business less onerous? From my point of view, the federal government does just the opposite. We can have an honest disagreement on the fundamentals of government involvement and the impact that it has on our lives, but there's just too much redundancy. Many things are best left to the individual states, and don't need to be included in the ever-growing influence Washington has in our lives. If the feds were capable of doing all this without coming up short in their budgets every year, more people might be inclined to agree with your point of view, but when we're nearing a debt level of 20 trillion dollars, eliminating unnecessary agencies and projects only seems like good sense.
TH3 Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 Flat tax - comical. I am guessing most everyone here on this board would pay more in taxes and the very wealthy would pay less....of course you would have more skin in the game...so there is that. The rich and corporations have so much skin in the in fact - that they pretty much write all the legislation that goes through our state and federal governments. A flat tax that would be revenue neutral - or seemingly balance the budget - would crush the economy. Flat taxes simply don't work - wonder why rich republicans always come up with that idea....
IDBillzFan Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 Obama (with the help of Congress) authorized spending on certain programs that I support, so yes, he's partially to thank, though only about as much as others blame him for their specific woes. Outside of funding my job, my raises have come from hard work. As far as 'have more unwanted babies', I thought the progressive strategy was to kill unwanted babies? Also, how is the progressive strategy of child credits different than the conservative strategy of child credits? In my own personal experience, and the great many people I've known over my life that have received some sort of government subsidy, every single one of them, including myself, would much rather be earning a decent wage. While I know that isn't proof that people would rather be gainfully employed generally, it certainly paints a different picture than you paint. I always come back to the fact that America has so much wealth and so many resources, yet there's still people without roofs over their head, and food in their stomachs. It doesn't make a lick of sense. So generally speaking, I tend to support a progressive tax system, and social safety nets. But if neither of those are fixing things for the lower classes in terms of opportunities and basic necessities, I'll need to keep an open mind about the various flat tax ideas. At the very least, I guess, I might be paying less, depending on the number selected, but that ends up making me feel a tad selfish. Do you genuinely not understand the difference between giving unemployed people 'extra free money" based on the number of children they keep having and can't support, and giving people credits on their earned income based on the number of children they have? If you can't understand that, you're definitely better off voting for a socialist president. Most people on the street with no roof over their head (vets notwithstanding) got that way not by anything you or I haven't done, but by choices that person did or didn't make. The reason Americans have so much wealth and so many resources is because you will NEVER find a place where earning your own wealth was so available to every single person born without a deformity. "Some people have too much and it isn't fair" is a quitter's game, and should surprise no one that those same people are on the government dole.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 Why is the government entitled to more than 50% of evr dollar earned over 10m?
FireChan Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 Why is the government entitled to more than 50% of evr dollar earned over 10m? They didn't build that? Looks like you disagree with Bernie's plan too, huh?
Recommended Posts