(04-14-2009 10:54 AM)Ranger Wrote:  

(04-13-2009 08:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  d.

Oh, well, they have my money for 2008 and 2009,

.

What do you mean "my money." It is "their" money, the government's
money.

I get a little tired of the "it's my money" rhetoric. It's a fee-for-service business. If you don't like the deal you're getting, see if you can get it changed. If you can't get it changed, find another deal. If you don't want to pay for government at all, move to Somalia, they don't have one.

(04-14-2009 11:06 AM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(04-14-2009 10:54 AM)Ranger Wrote:  

(04-13-2009 08:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  d.

Oh, well, they have my money for 2008 and 2009,

.

What do you mean "my money." It is "their" money, the government's
money.

I get a little tired of the "it's my money" rhetoric. It's a fee-for-service business. If you don't like the deal you're getting, see if you can get it changed. If you can't get it changed, find another deal. If you don't want to pay for government at all, move to Somalia, they don't have one.

I don't think many of us have a problem with paying taxes. It is necessary. But it is our money which we pay for the necessary support of government. The problem arises when certain elements believe that it is their (or the government's money) and that tax cuts are give aways to certain citizens. No, tax cuts are both a reduction of the cost and on occasion a policy to stimulate the environment. Government should not take more than is necessary. It is not their money, and they have a responsibility to be good stewards of the money.

I am at a loss to figure out how that can be controversial.

(04-14-2009 11:18 AM)Ranger Wrote:  

(04-14-2009 11:06 AM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(04-14-2009 10:54 AM)Ranger Wrote:  

(04-13-2009 08:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  d.

Oh, well, they have my money for 2008 and 2009,

.

What do you mean "my money." It is "their" money, the government's
money.

I get a little tired of the "it's my money" rhetoric. It's a fee-for-service business. If you don't like the deal you're getting, see if you can get it changed. If you can't get it changed, find another deal. If you don't want to pay for government at all, move to Somalia, they don't have one.

I don't think many of us have a problem with paying taxes. It is necessary. But it is our money which we pay for the necessary support of government. The problem arises when certain elements believe that it is their (or the government's money) and that tax cuts are give aways to certain citizens. No, tax cuts are both a reduction of the cost and on occasion a policy to stimulate the environment. Government should not take more than is necessary. It is not their money, and they have a responsibility to be good stewards of the money.

I am at a loss to figure out how that can be controversial.

Well, another problem is with government as "them". Like it or not, it's us, collectively. If your representatives don't respond to your wishes, see if you can change that. Or better still, see if you can change their incentives from the big campaign contributors and others who can get them re-elected to some that are more reflective of the interests of their constituents.

Yes, government wastes money and spends on things I think are mistakes. But my mistakes are your essential programs, so I live with a lot of stuff I don't like. It's a lot like my church - they spend money on staff, building, youth programs, missions, music, etc... Some of it I wouldn't do, some I think need more resources. but I advocate for what I want and live with the result.

But internet message boards are a good place to rant, charge ahead.

(04-14-2009 11:38 AM)Old Sammy Wrote:  Well, another problem is with government as "them". Like it or not, it's us, collectively. If your representatives don't respond to your wishes, see if you can change that. Or better still, see if you can change their incentives from the big campaign contributors and others who can get them re-elected to some that are more reflective of the interests of their constituents.

The problem is that changing elected officials ultimately means little without changing the bureaucrats imbedded in the system. And by the time the dual effects of civil service and their unions are felt, not even congress can get rid of them.

Our elected representatives may truly be "us." But the bureaucrats truly are "them." And they are pretty much insulated from accountability for their actions. I really don't like the idea of giving those people any more power than is absolutely necessary.

(04-14-2009 11:38 AM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(04-14-2009 11:18 AM)Ranger Wrote:  

(04-14-2009 11:06 AM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(04-14-2009 10:54 AM)Ranger Wrote:  

(04-13-2009 08:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  d.

Oh, well, they have my money for 2008 and 2009,

.

What do you mean "my money." It is "their" money, the government's
money.

I get a little tired of the "it's my money" rhetoric. It's a fee-for-service business. If you don't like the deal you're getting, see if you can get it changed. If you can't get it changed, find another deal. If you don't want to pay for government at all, move to Somalia, they don't have one.

I don't think many of us have a problem with paying taxes. It is necessary. But it is our money which we pay for the necessary support of government. The problem arises when certain elements believe that it is their (or the government's money) and that tax cuts are give aways to certain citizens. No, tax cuts are both a reduction of the cost and on occasion a policy to stimulate the environment. Government should not take more than is necessary. It is not their money, and they have a responsibility to be good stewards of the money.

I am at a loss to figure out how that can be controversial.

Well, another problem is with government as "them". Like it or not, it's us, collectively. If your representatives don't respond to your wishes, see if you can change that. Or better still, see if you can change their incentives from the big campaign contributors and others who can get them re-elected to some that are more reflective of the interests of their constituents.

Yes, government wastes money and spends on things I think are mistakes. But my mistakes are your essential programs, so I live with a lot of stuff I don't like. It's a lot like my church - they spend money on staff, building, youth programs, missions, music, etc... Some of it I wouldn't do, some I think need more resources. but I advocate for what I want and live with the result.

But internet message boards are a good place to rant, charge ahead.

A. I will restate what I said, so it is more clear. I have already provided the government with my full required contribution for 2008 AND my full estimated required contribution for 2009. They have the cash, I don't. I did this so I could feel more safe from prosecution by my government.

B. Fee for service? I don't buy this. Where is the price list? Can I opt out of some services and double up on others. Why do some people pay a larger fee for the same or less services? If any other fee-for-service provider, such as a doctor, lawyer, exterminator, or plumber were to base his charges on your gross icome, would you think that was fair? Plumber: "Mr. Sammy, I am going to charge you three times the usual rate for fixing this leaky faucet because you can afford it".

C. Did you regard the goverment as "us" the eight years, especially the first six of those?n

D. Who's ranting? (Hint: the answer might surprise you

(04-14-2009 09:17 AM)gsloth Wrote:  

(04-13-2009 11:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The date was mentioned by George Will during the round table discussion on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Although George did not give a source for that date, neither did any of the other panelists, liberal or conservative, raise any objection.

OK, found a Reuters article on the recent CBO estimate of a $1.8T deficit in 2009, out of a $3.55T budget. Using Obama's $1.75T deficit estimate, that's 49.30% of the total budget is deficit spending. Using the CBO estimate, that 50.70% in deficit spending. So under Obama's estimate, we spent all revenue by 7/5 (how ironic), while it's 6/29 under the COB estimate.

Now, the off-book items may push that spending number up, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't account for it all. To get to George Will's number, we'd get through 31.23% of the year before tax revenues are used up. Assuming the CBO deficit number as a starting block, we have ($1.8T + X)/($3.55T + X)=68.77%, which gives me the off-book spending of about $2.05T. Maybe we have that much, but I'm not sure the war spending and a few other things add up to that.

Again, doesn't pass the sniff test for me, but I need to know more about the assumptions.

And as we both know, those shows aren't set up for real, substantive dialogue and questioning among the participants. They're there to score points for "their side."

Come now, have you seen the show? How can you think that George Will, Ariana Huffington, Paul Krugman, Donna Brazile, and Newt Gingrich constitute a "side"?

If you mean they express their viewpoints, yes, they do, but they are not all the same viewpoint, nor are they always what one side or the other would prefer to hear. George Will in particular says what he thinks, and those do not always match what the conservatives would like to hear.

There is always a variety of political viewpoints expressed, usually with an edge to the liberals, but usually the discussion is polite and mostly factual. (Huffington would be rare exception). George S. moderates it reasonably fairly. I agree the time alloted is too short for the deeper discussion of the issues which I would prefer.

And don't forget who brought George S. to Washington.

(04-14-2009 11:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-14-2009 09:17 AM)gsloth Wrote:  And as we both know, those shows aren't set up for real, substantive dialogue and questioning among the participants. They're there to score points for "their side."

Come now, have you seen the show? How can you think that George Will, Ariana Huffington, Paul Krugman, Donna Brazile, and Newt Gingrich constitute a "side"?

If you mean they express their viewpoints, yes, they do, but they are not all the same viewpoint, nor are they always what one side or the other would prefer to hear. George Will in particular says what he thinks, and those do not always match what the conservatives would like to hear.

There is always a variety of political viewpoints expressed, usually with an edge to the liberals, but usually the discussion is polite and mostly factual. (Huffington would be rare exception). George S. moderates it reasonably fairly. I agree the time alloted is too short for the deeper discussion of the issues which I would prefer.

And don't forget who brought George S. to Washington.

You nailed my point just fine. I used their side in quotes exactly because there isn't a side, per se, unlike how most news shows do things nowadays (choose a topic, but only one, find a talking head for each side, and let them have at most 30 seconds of total speaking time each before we have to cut to commercial - and if they're yelling at each other and cutting each other off, so much the better - SNL parodied this very well in the 70s). But they are on there for the relative coverage of the political spectrum and will often be representative of those alignments. I certainly did not mean to intend that the show was slanted to one perspective, but rather each participant has a niche that they kind of represent in many instances.

(04-14-2009 11:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  B. Fee for service? I don't buy this. Where is the price list? Can I opt out of some services and double up on others. Why do some people pay a larger fee for the same or less services? If any other fee-for-service provider, such as a doctor, lawyer, exterminator, or plumber were to base his charges on your gross icome, would you think that was fair? Plumber: "Mr. Sammy, I am going to charge you three times the usual rate for fixing this leaky faucet because you can afford it".

I find this opinion hilarious, considering many, many doctors will indeed adjust their fees for students, and other low-income patients. I have had it happen numerous times at the dentist, and one of my doctors is nice enough to cut her rate automatically if the insurance comes back denied (which with Rice is a pretty good bet). Plenty of lawyers do pro-bono work, and I am going to assume that is tied to the person's income. I have gotten car repairs done cheaply by buying the part from autozone and basically making a plea to a local mechanic to put it on for a discount.

So, I'm sure you have paid a larger fee for several these same services.

Of course that also depends on your definition of "same". If you live in West U, or some place like it, then your property taxes are probably higher than mine. But I've also been pulled over in West U for such egregious offenses as 1) inspection sticker out of date (by 1 month) 2) license plate light broken (wasn't dark out yet) 3) no front license (it's registered in another state) and my favorite, the "have you been drinking" grilling (while completely sober). In other words, they pull over people just for looking like they don't belong. I find this annoying, but you can bet West U is a pretty safe neighborhood. Mine, on the other hand, has had 1 or 2 cars broken into every night last week, and I'm about a mile from parts of Houston that the cops just don't go to at all.

Now, as to thinking of taxes as "fee for service", I think a more appropriate model is insurance - of course some people are going to be "heavy" users and some will end up barely using their coverage at all, but the whole system works on distributing risk. Similarly, you can't know a priori whether you will lose your job this year and need unemployment benefits, but it sure helps, doesn't it??? You can complain that you never use the Katy tollway so why should you pay for it... but then you get a new job and you DO have to use it? Deciding which things are worthwhile and which are not isn't an easy task, but to just pay for what you use will have secondary effects which will be detrimental to you, and everyone else. As I have stated elsewhere, I firmly believe that helping the lowest classes get out of poverty has a net positive effect all the way up the food chain, due to decreased crime and increased productivity as a whole.

(04-14-2009 11:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  A. I will restate what I said, so it is more clear. I have already provided the government with my full required contribution for 2008 AND my full estimated required contribution for 2009. They have the cash, I don't. I did this so I could feel more safe from prosecution by my government.

B. Fee for service? I don't buy this. Where is the price list? Can I opt out of some services and double up on others. Why do some people pay a larger fee for the same or less services? If any other fee-for-service provider, such as a doctor, lawyer, exterminator, or plumber were to base his charges on your gross icome, would you think that was fair? Plumber: "Mr. Sammy, I am going to charge you three times the usual rate for fixing this leaky faucet because you can afford it".

C. Did you regard the goverment as "us" the eight years, especially the first six of those?n

D. Who's ranting? (Hint: the answer might surprise you

A. OK. I've paid a significant chunk myself, though there's more to go. I'd rather have paid a couple of years of college tuition with it, but that's the deal, so I'll live with it. The threat of prosecution isn't a factor to me, just as the threat of eternal damnation isn't a factor in giving to the church.

B. A weak analogy, agreed. Maybe emmiesix's is better. I currently pay something like $15K (my contribution plus my former employer's) for health insurance. That gets me great discounts on heart transplants, among other things. If I decide that I'm never going to need a heart transplant, can I opt out of that coverage and save some $$$? No. It's a package deal. Gov't services are a package deal. We can change what's in the package, but if we do it changes for everyone.

The basic point is that I as an affluent individual have a much greater need for government services that someone less financially advantaged. I should expect to pay more for them. My entire livelihood is based on law and the justice system which is a complete government construct. I have investments which depend on regulated (well, maybe not...) markets. I fly more frequently than most - nice to have air traffic control. I need the military to protect all this from outsiders. And on and on.

C. Yup, GWB was my President, too (and Obama is yours). I disagreed mightily with a lot of what he did, and told my representatives about it, but in the end that's the system and I have to either opt in or opt out. If you consider the spectrum of what's possible for political organization of society, there really isn't a dime's bit of difference between the Republicans and Democrats.

D. Me, I'm sure. As noted elsewhere, I was feeling a bit testy yesterday and the Ags didn't help my demeanor last night, either. Grrrr.

(04-15-2009 08:10 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  As I have stated elsewhere, I firmly believe that helping the lowest classes get out of poverty has a net positive effect all the way up the food chain, due to decreased crime and increased productivity as a whole.

The tougher question is, what policies are most effective in helping the lowest classes get out of poverty?

One could aruge that the best way to help people out of poverty is to give them cash. As everyone from Daniel Moynihan to anyone who works with the the homeless will tell you, it's an empirically false argument, but it remains popular.

One could argue that the best way to help people out of poverty is a combination of:
- strong community policing to get criminals off the streets, so that non-criminals in poor neighborhoods (which is most of the people) stand a chance of a normal life.
- small schools with tough academic and disciplinary standards, and education assistance (curiously they are called Pell Grants when given to middle-class college students whose futures don't really depend on them, but "vouchers" when proposed for poor kids whose do) to allow kids to attend such schools right now, without waiting for low-performing schools to somehow fix themselves;
- a business climate that promotes small-business entrepreneurship, which creates the vast majority of jobs.
- trade policy that encourages international trade as much as possible, both to reduce the costs of ordinary consumer goods (which take up a disproportionate share of poor people's income) and to increase employment opportunities.

The above are not usually thought of as anti-poverty measures, but they are. For the most part, they also have the curious virtue of actually working. Free trade has done more to make the necessities of life, especially food, affordable than any other policy in the history of mankind; a testament to its success is that our present age is the only one in history in which poor people are fat.

I wonder if the efficacy of such policies partly explains why they are not very popular among anti-poverty "advocates". After all, if you actually reduce poverty (particularly through policies that do not treat the poor as a special class), you diminish your own constituency, and no interest group is terribly eager to do that.

Obviously, the two policy sets are spectral opposites, politically. Other policies that could be effective against poverty would include:
- good mass transit. Facilitating people getting to work is good for business.
- strong public-health (as distinct from curative medicine) programs. Keeping people healthy is good for business.
- anything that makes schools better.

(04-15-2009 08:10 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(04-14-2009 11:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  B. Fee for service? I don't buy this. Where is the price list? Can I opt out of some services and double up on others. Why do some people pay a larger fee for the same or less services? If any other fee-for-service provider, such as a doctor, lawyer, exterminator, or plumber were to base his charges on your gross icome, would you think that was fair? Plumber: "Mr. Sammy, I am going to charge you three times the usual rate for fixing this leaky faucet because you can afford it".

I find this opinion hilarious, considering many, many doctors will indeed adjust their fees for students, and other low-income patients. I have had it happen numerous times at the dentist, and one of my doctors is nice enough to cut her rate automatically if the insurance comes back denied (which with Rice is a pretty good bet). Plenty of lawyers do pro-bono work, and I am going to assume that is tied to the person's income. I have gotten car repairs done cheaply by buying the part from autozone and basically making a plea to a local mechanic to put it on for a discount.

So, I'm sure you have paid a larger fee for several these same services.

Of course that also depends on your definition of "same". If you live in West U, or some place like it, then your property taxes are probably higher than mine. But I've also been pulled over in West U for such egregious offenses as 1) inspection sticker out of date (by 1 month) 2) license plate light broken (wasn't dark out yet) 3) no front license (it's registered in another state) and my favorite, the "have you been drinking" grilling (while completely sober). In other words, they pull over people just for looking like they don't belong. I find this annoying, but you can bet West U is a pretty safe neighborhood. Mine, on the other hand, has had 1 or 2 cars broken into every night last week, and I'm about a mile from parts of Houston that the cops just don't go to at all.

Now, as to thinking of taxes as "fee for service", I think a more appropriate model is insurance - of course some people are going to be "heavy" users and some will end up barely using their coverage at all, but the whole system works on distributing risk. Similarly, you can't know a priori whether you will lose your job this year and need unemployment benefits, but it sure helps, doesn't it??? You can complain that you never use the Katy tollway so why should you pay for it... but then you get a new job and you DO have to use it? Deciding which things are worthwhile and which are not isn't an easy task, but to just pay for what you use will have secondary effects which will be detrimental to you, and everyone else. As I have stated elsewhere, I firmly believe that helping the lowest classes get out of poverty has a net positive effect all the way up the food chain, due to decreased crime and increased productivity as a whole.

We'll start with the good stuff...your insurance analogy is very good. I think what has been lost in this discuasion is that nobody i know advocates the abolition of taxes. I will gladly buy the insurance, but i think it is too expensive and covers the wrong things, and i am saying so, which apparently is the problem people have with me.They want me to cheerfully pay too much for the wrong stuff and not complain.

Nice of your dentist to cut his prices, and lawyers to do pro bono work, but notice all the price modifications in your example are in one direction...down. The tax system, however, is based on some people paying more than others for the same service solely on the basis of their income. Look at it this way. You go to the dentist, and he says you need a root canal. You say how much, and he says $1000. You say i can't afford that, and he cuts it to $200 for you. Then I come in and sit down. He says, OO, you need a root canal. I say how much. he says, depends...how much do you make? I tell him, and he says, for you the root canal is $8000. I say why so much, and he says, well, you can afford $8000, and in any case, I need to cover the discount I gave Emmie. And the guy down the street who may need a root canal sometime in the next few years. And my boat payment.

I can see why you would be cheerful. I can see why the guy down the street would be cheerful. I can see why the dentist would be cheerful. Can anyone see why I should be cheerful?

True fee-for-service prices are not adjustable up, unless you have met a charlatan who assesses your car, your house, your clothes and jacks up the price in advance. Your insurance analogy is more apt than fee-for-service.

Your West U. experiences are basically the old notion of "tax the ousider, not the guy who can vote you out of your job." So if they can get cash from people who do not have standing to complain to your boss, great. If you are obviously and outsider, expect to be targeted more.

Sure, you were stopped and asked if you were drinking. There is legislation pending to make this legal on a wholesale basis, as it is in many states - they are called "sobriety checkpoints". Personally, I oppose the concept of letting the cops go on a fishing expedition. I think you were wronged.

(04-15-2009 09:48 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-15-2009 08:10 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  As I have stated elsewhere, I firmly believe that helping the lowest classes get out of poverty has a net positive effect all the way up the food chain, due to decreased crime and increased productivity as a whole.

The tougher question is, what policies are most effective in helping the lowest classes get out of poverty?

One could aruge that the best way to help people out of poverty is to give them cash. As everyone from Daniel Moynihan to anyone who works with the the homeless will tell you, it's an empirically false argument, but it remains popular.

One could argue that the best way to help people out of poverty is a combination of:
- strong community policing to get criminals off the streets, so that non-criminals in poor neighborhoods (which is most of the people) stand a chance of a normal life.
- small schools with tough academic and disciplinary standards, and education assistance (curiously they are called Pell Grants when given to middle-class college students whose futures don't really depend on them, but "vouchers" when proposed for poor kids whose do) to allow kids to attend such schools right now, without waiting for low-performing schools to somehow fix themselves;
- a business climate that promotes small-business entrepreneurship, which creates the vast majority of jobs.
- trade policy that encourages international trade as much as possible, both to reduce the costs of ordinary consumer goods (which take up a disproportionate share of poor people's income) and to increase employment opportunities.

The above are not usually thought of as anti-poverty measures, but they are. For the most part, they also have the curious virtue of actually working. Free trade has done more to make the necessities of life, especially food, affordable than any other policy in the history of mankind; a testament to its success is that our present age is the only one in history in which poor people are fat.

I wonder if the efficacy of such policies partly explains why they are not very popular among anti-poverty "advocates". After all, if you actually reduce poverty (particularly through policies that do not treat the poor as a special class), you diminish your own constituency, and no interest group is terribly eager to do that.

Obviously, the two policy sets are spectral opposites, politically. Other policies that could be effective against poverty would include:
- good mass transit. Facilitating people getting to work is good for business.
- strong public-health (as distinct from curative medicine) programs. Keeping people healthy is good for business.
- anything that makes schools better.

Excellent, George.

I also would add that the definition of poverty can be very subjective. Most of the americans who are in poverty would be considered very well off on many countries. It's like the old saying about the man who had no shoes feeling sorry for himself until he met a man with no feet. Many, maybe most of our impoverished americans have cars, TVs, cell phones, AC ... stuff the impoverished in many places would kill for (Somalia?).

But it is a relative thing, also. Raise the minimum wage to $100/hour - now everyone makes $200K/year. Have we eliminated poverty? No, we just changed the definition. There will always be a bottom of the pyramid. Yes we can and should raise the level at which the bottom tier lives. But it will still be poor relative to the top.

(04-15-2009 09:29 AM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(04-14-2009 11:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  A. I will restate what I said, so it is more clear. I have already provided the government with my full required contribution for 2008 AND my full estimated required contribution for 2009. They have the cash, I don't. I did this so I could feel more safe from prosecution by my government.

B. Fee for service? I don't buy this. Where is the price list? Can I opt out of some services and double up on others. Why do some people pay a larger fee for the same or less services? If any other fee-for-service provider, such as a doctor, lawyer, exterminator, or plumber were to base his charges on your gross icome, would you think that was fair? Plumber: "Mr. Sammy, I am going to charge you three times the usual rate for fixing this leaky faucet because you can afford it".

C. Did you regard the goverment as "us" the eight years, especially the first six of those?n

D. Who's ranting? (Hint: the answer might surprise you

A. OK. I've paid a significant chunk myself, though there's more to go. I'd rather have paid a couple of years of college tuition with it, but that's the deal, so I'll live with it. The threat of prosecution isn't a factor to me, just as the threat of eternal damnation isn't a factor in giving to the church.

B. A weak analogy, agreed. Maybe emmiesix's is better. I currently pay something like $15K (my contribution plus my former employer's) for health insurance. That gets me great discounts on heart transplants, among other things. If I decide that I'm never going to need a heart transplant, can I opt out of that coverage and save some $$$? No. It's a package deal. Gov't services are a package deal. We can change what's in the package, but if we do it changes for everyone.

The basic point is that I as an affluent individual have a much greater need for government services that someone less financially advantaged. I should expect to pay more for them. My entire livelihood is based on law and the justice system which is a complete government construct. I have investments which depend on regulated (well, maybe not...) markets. I fly more frequently than most - nice to have air traffic control. I need the military to protect all this from outsiders. And on and on.

C. Yup, GWB was my President, too (and Obama is yours). I disagreed mightily with a lot of what he did, and told my representatives about it, but in the end that's the system and I have to either opt in or opt out. If you consider the spectrum of what's possible for political organization of society, there really isn't a dime's bit of difference between the Republicans and Democrats.

D. Me, I'm sure. As noted elsewhere, I was feeling a bit testy yesterday and the Ags didn't help my demeanor last night, either. Grrrr.

A. If you paid it, what did you pay it with? "Your" money? Yes, it was yours, even if in name only, for a while, anyway. Yeah, I'm living with the deal myself. What is the alternative?

B. I agree Emmie's was better. As I said above, I don't like paying too much for insurance that covers the wrong things, but as we both said, that's the deal, we have to live with it until we can get it changed, but we do not have to take the deal in silence. Yeah, I'm glad the air traffic controllers are there when I fly. I wish the Border Patrol and ICE would be allowed to their job too. I am still paying my share, and some other people's share, for both services, even though we are only getting some of what we are paying for.

C. Every president is yours and mine. I like ours (now) about as much you liked ours (before). I don't know what you mean by opting out. How is that done? Is there a government agency that could advise me on this? A publication I can order? If by opting in, you mean I do what is needed to get along, like pay the required monies to the Treasury, I do that. The alternative to paying the required $$$ is pretty bad. Without the threat of punishment, very few citizens of any political bent would do the "patriotic" thing and buy the insurance package. Maybe if it was legal to opt out of paying taxes, you still would. Most wouldn't.

D. Damn Ags.

(04-15-2009 09:48 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-15-2009 08:10 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  As I have stated elsewhere, I firmly believe that helping the lowest classes get out of poverty has a net positive effect all the way up the food chain, due to decreased crime and increased productivity as a whole.

The tougher question is, what policies are most effective in helping the lowest classes get out of poverty?

The irony is that most of our "anti-poverty" programs have done far more to keep poor people poor than to get them out of poverty. The cynical side of me says that democrats are committed to keeping poor people poor, so that they will continue to vote for democrats. The other cynical side of me asks how dumb are republicans that this has been going on for 50 years or more and they have yet to come up with a credible alternative.

Things like what you have mentioned, George, and other things like enterprise zones, would do more than anything to solve the problem.

(04-15-2009 09:29 AM)Old Sammy Wrote:  B. A weak analogy, agreed. Maybe emmiesix's is better. I currently pay something like $15K (my contribution plus my former employer's) for health insurance. That gets me great discounts on heart transplants, among other things. If I decide that I'm never going to need a heart transplant, can I opt out of that coverage and save some $$$? No. It's a package deal. Gov't services are a package deal. We can change what's in the package, but if we do it changes for everyone.

The basic point is that I as an affluent individual have a much greater need for government services that someone less financially advantaged. I should expect to pay more for them.

C. Yup, GWB was my President, too (and Obama is yours).

Nope, Obama isn't my president, nor was GWB. They may occupy the office of president in the country in which I choose (for now, at least) to live and maintain my citizenship, but that's the extent of it. When I was commissioned as a naval officer I took and oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Not the president. Not the congress. The Constitution. If I didn't owe more than that to Tricky Dick Nixon when my paycheck came on green cardboard, I sure as heck don't owe it to this bozo or his predecessor bozo.

Clinton and Reagan are really the only two presidents in my lifetime for whom I have felt any affection. I heard Art Laffer (of supply-side economics and the Laffer curve) over the weekend, saying that he considered Clinton to be a "great" president. I agree, for the same reasons as Laffer cited.

As for your insurance company, they would probably have been happy to offer you a policy without heart transplant coverage. They don't because the government won't let them.

Interesting argument about affluent individuals receiving more benefit from government than poor individuals. Helps to explain the otherwise counterintuitive preference of so many wealthy individuals for democrat politics.

(04-14-2009 09:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-14-2009 08:58 AM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(04-13-2009 02:37 PM)lou Wrote:  The graduated system gets me when it comes to taxes.
Going from the 'grad student' salary of 25k to an entry level job at 50k increases your tax burden from $3350 to $8850. Not quite as linear.
Also an $11 billion budget for the IRS grinds my gears...

No one said it was linear. But, your numbers are specious.

Nothing specious about the numbers at all. Assuming you include FICA (you pay it, don't you, so no reason not to include), and depending on how the deductions shake out, his numbers could be spot on.

Numbers are pulled directly off the 2008 Tax Table. Well, rounded from 3353 to 3350 to look better in comparison to 8850, which is directly from the table.

(04-15-2009 08:10 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  Of course that also depends on your definition of "same". If you live in West U, or some place like it, then your property taxes are probably higher than mine. But I've also been pulled over in West U for such egregious offenses as 1) inspection sticker out of date (by 1 month) 2) license plate light broken (wasn't dark out yet) 3) no front license (it's registered in another state) and my favorite, the "have you been drinking" grilling (while completely sober). In other words, they pull over people just for looking like they don't belong. I find this annoying, but you can bet West U is a pretty safe neighborhood. Mine, on the other hand, has had 1 or 2 cars broken into every night last week, and I'm about a mile from parts of Houston that the cops just don't go to at all.

My only experience with WestU cops is getting slammed against a truck at the Marquis II because I tried to asked them a question when my friends were getting cuffed for a trip to the drunk tank...

(04-16-2009 09:58 AM)lou Wrote:  

(04-14-2009 09:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-14-2009 08:58 AM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(04-13-2009 02:37 PM)lou Wrote:  The graduated system gets me when it comes to taxes.
Going from the 'grad student' salary of 25k to an entry level job at 50k increases your tax burden from $3350 to $8850. Not quite as linear.
Also an $11 billion budget for the IRS grinds my gears...

No one said it was linear. But, your numbers are specious.

Nothing specious about the numbers at all. Assuming you include FICA (you pay it, don't you, so no reason not to include), and depending on how the deductions shake out, his numbers could be spot on.

Numbers are pulled directly off the 2008 Tax Table. Well, rounded from 3353 to 3350 to look better in comparison to 8850, which is directly from the table.

Ah, a difference in definition. You are using taxable income, while I think they are using AGI.

Principle is unchanged.