We do all kinds of things for people who’ve done “nothing to earn it.” That’s what a civilized society does.
Eagle Scout 1987. Plenty
Thanks, I do what I can. I brought up the war on poverty because, as I have mentioned several other times, I do not think that the federal government is an efficient vessel for keeping people fed, housed, or clothed. If it were, I would not need to add my own inputs at the local level correct? Yet I am told to believe that there is no other entity out there that can do a better job.
…
Hey congrats. Not sure what your Eagle Scout status has to do with anything.
You seem to be ignoring my suggestion that we examine when poor (or hungry) people in the aggregate are less poor and hungry. Presuming that the best scenario is one in which the fewest people are poor or hungry (regardless of whether you have personally taken two families into your home to live with you), then I’ll keep applauding your personal efforts and will also keep telling you that this has no bearing on the larger issue of taxation, income distribution, and alleviating suffering in America.
How many virtual buttons do you want? I’ll keep handing them to you for each good deed you share with us, but it’s not really helping your overall argument.
Just to be absolutely clear, you would prefer to do away with every single government assistance program, from SSI to farm subsidies?
Also, your personal preference is that everyone contribute to building and maintaining roads and bridges.
But why should someone without a car wish to “share his wealth” with folks who use the roads?
Wouldn’t user fees be a better approach - taxes on gas, car purchase, car registration, expanded tolls, etc. Those user fees would factor into prices of retail goods that were transported over the roads…
Same argument goes for the FAA subsidizing air travel, publicly funded schools, etc. ad infinitum.
Sorry, assumption on my part. That ranks has lots of service projects, and such attached to it.
Good point. I realize that my efforts, however grand I think them to be, pale in comparison to the big picture. Ultimately, I do what I do because I know that it helps someone, and to be honest, I feel better for it and I like feeling that way. I just don’t get that warm and fuzzy, that others appear to, when I write a check to the feds every quarter.
Stop asking how much I donated in HS and my tales of glory will cease. I am attempting to present a case where a person who earns X, actually cares about others, be socially liberal, likes old people and doesn’t kick dogs, yet still is concerned sending even a bigger cut back to the government black hole.
I got rid of the mustache and haven’t had a good “mwu ha ha ha” laugh in some time.
I always had the notion (which I expect to posit poorly here) that ‘the wealthy’ pay more in taxes because they actually typically use more of the resources of the country.
That is;
The wealthy have more stuff. That stuff needs to be protected from theft etc. So law enforcement and fire protection resources are assigned more to them than others (perhaps).
The wealthy sell stuff, or manufacture stuff, or employ people. The employees, the raw goods and the customers all need to find each other. So good or decent roads are needed.
If there are employees, they have to be at least minimally educated. Sometimes more than minimally. Therefore, schools need to be paid for.
A good, decent ethical businessperson and their potential customers need to be protected from unethical or illegal practices of similar businesses. So some independent testing or lab needs to be in place. Like the FDA and FTC. Think of the recent tainted chinese milk problems. If you were selling milk without melamine in it, your customers would still stop buying unless someone independent said you were clean. How would you properly buy your raw materials unless you had reasonable assurance of their suitability of use? One or two bad batches of finished product, while you found out who the crooks were could ruin you.
If you need a loan to expand your business, are you going to turn to a loanshark? Or to a regulated financial institution? Your deposits, your earnings…who do you trust to handle those?
Transfer payments, whether Social Security, disability; unemployment, etc keeps people from doing things like living on the streets and thieving for their basic needs. Is the system abused? Sure. But it beats building more prisons etc because they broke into your home or business so they could rob you and steal money, goods, food. These transfer payments are used to buy goods, from businesspeople.
There is a whole infrastructure supporting commerce (small and large businesses) and wealth gets generated more quickly by having that infrastructure in place. The wealthy benefit more from that infrastructure, so I don’t think it outrageous that at some point they pay marginally higher rates for use of that infrastructure.
Side note: I am sometimes dismayed and saddened by the number of very bright people that I sense do not understand marginal taxation.
Did anyone catch John Oliver’s Joe-the-Plumber bit on The Daily Show last night?
JOHN STEWART: John, what’s with this obsession? This guy has already given more interviews than Sarah Palin!
JXJohns I would like to address a couple things you have said or that I have (possibly incorrecty) inferred from your posts.
First, I think it is a bogus argument to try and talk only about one kind of tax. Every study I have read that compares total tax burden shows that poor people usually end up paying just as much as those in higher tax brackets when you include all taxes. I broke this down in another thread to show how without a progressive income tax the richer you are the lower your rate overall.
Second, there are two debates getting mixed up here. One is should we have progressive taxes, and the other is what should government do with the money. They really should be separate issues. (In the same thread I linked a site that broke down your federal income tax by program and there is a lot less downward distribution than most people assume).
I would also like to point out in that even with a progressive tax, you are never going to end up with less by making more. Sure, you may pay 3, 5 or 10% more on money you make over a certain point, but that only applies to money above that. I believe a read that if Joe the plumber’s (incorrect) statement that he would be netting 280,000 a year on this business was true the difference between Obama and McCain tax plans would be $600 extra dollars on that extra 30k.
I think it is also worth mentioning that the top marginal rate is currently at one of the lowest levels ever and even Obama’s proposal would not take it up to the levels we have seen in the past. We are talking about a slight adjustment, here not a radical departure.
Jonathan
To start, I would prefer to get rid of any programs that are not meeting their intended goals, at the expense of the US taxpayer. I would prefer to have annual reviews of said programs to determine their progress.
SS is a fund that I pay in to, and if I am luckily will be solvent when I turn 65. I then receive the money that I contributed over a period of time. Hopefully, I’ll break even. Since so many in the country have no will power to save, it is the only way to insure they will be able to keep their lights on at retirement. My take from the program when I retire will be a direct result of the amount of money that I contributed. that is fair.
I live in Iowa, so don’t get me started on the waste that is farm subsidies, ethanol subsidies, bio-fuel subsidies, tax free diesel fuel, etc. Any proponent of progressive taxes should be on my side on this one. Typically, those who farm the most acres receive the greatest amount of subsidies. Those who have the traditional 40 acres and a mule “family farm” and who need the money the most accordin to some, get their small checks, but it is the big boys whose checks have all of the zeros behind them.
And they’ve both been interviewed way more than William Ayers.
That’s because, as I predicted in this thread, the Ayers thing had already got all the traction it was ever going to get long before McCain made the mistake of mentioning it.
I referred to SSI, Supplemental Security Income, a needs-based assistance program administrered by Social Security, but distinct from your expectation of earnings-based retirement benefits. I simply named it as one of various federal and local “welfare” programs, where individuals are provided direct cash or goods benefits exceeding the amount of any taxes they paid.
Do you support any government assistance to the poorest and least able members of society? If so, how do you draw a line between which you support and which you don’t?
You say you “would prefer to get rid of any programs that are not meeting their intended goals…” How, exactly, would you define the “goals” of various programs? Are these “goals” clearly identified in each assistance program you object to, or do they reflect your personal understandings and preferences?
Because the wealthy are the ones who provide jobs. I don’t know too many businesses making next to nothing who are doing great things for the economy. That’s just my opinion though.
As for the “giving” concept… I certainly don’t think it should be government mandated. That’s the problem we wicked right wingers have with it. I would much rather give to a cause that I know won’t blow the money on stupid stuff.
I would apply my previous comments to this program as well. There is no reason that the government should not be held accountable for the way taxpayer money is spent. If measurable goals cannot be met, the program needs to be revamped in order to do so.
I would prefer that support to come form the state and community level. I feel that they have the best idea of local need. the Obama campaign has been lauded for its ability to get campaign workers in small towns across the US. Why is that? Perhaps they know that local people can make a greater impact on their local areas? I see no difference.
If the program was called “feed the hungry” I would expect there to be goals set up as to number of meals served, vouchers for food distributed AND redeemed, etc. Measurable numbers that allow a department to adjust its practices to control waste, and fraud. If a department is not meeting set goals, measures are taken to do so. That is how the real world works. If people abuse the system, through trackable means, they are dropped or in severe cases, prosecuted.
Did you read my link from above? Local consortium charged with support of the unemployed, laid off etc. Funded by the State and the feds to provide training for new careers, you get the gist. Unfortunately, those in charge wasted close to 2 million dollar in executive bonuses, trips, cars, boats, trips to casinos during working hours, you name it.
This is both a good an bad example. Federal money wasted, yet enough accountability and measurements to note the waste, stop it, and then prosecute those involved. The days of “use it or lose it” philosophy regarding state and federal funding need to go.
I don’t believe that voluntary donations are at all effective at combating poverty or raising the quality of lives for the impoverished, realizing that we are talking about the entire country here. I believe that it’s a widespread problem that can only be addressed in a meaningful fashion by a widespread solution - exactly like keeping the roads maintained is. To me, that argues that government programs are the obvious way to go to solve this problem.
Of course, this assumes that the goal is to actually stop the problem. If the goal is just to feel good by making donations, or to only help the people in your neighborhood while letting the rest of the country go to rot…well, in those cases, the government is not the route to go in helping the poor. But if providing an actual society-wide safety net is the goal, it does seem to me that the only reasonable way to do that is to do it like we do with the road system - pay taxes to the government, and have the government do its thing.
This of course only really works if the programs that the government uses to provide the safety net are working the way they’re supposed- and I’m not saying that all the current ones do. But that’s another debate, as opposed to whether it’s philosophically reasonable at all to tax and use the money in ways that ‘redistribute the wealth’, I think.
Well, then I don’t see how you can object to the success of SSI, which aims at providing payments to individuals who meet their statutory criteria. Rather, I suspect you do, in fact, object to their goals.
But McCain made himself look silly and desperate mentioning Ayers – and even more so mentioning ACORN. (Which organization is now enjoying more publicity, I’m sure, than at any time since its founding, and there’s no bad publicity.)
So you don’t have any interest in public health programs or feeding the poor or housing the elderly? None of that sort of “government?”