General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2211827

    The rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. . . . .

    Locked

    by maxwell edison ·

    ….. or so says Hillary Clinton.

    [i]”The rich are not paying their fair share (of taxes) ….. whether it’s individual, corporate or whatever (form of) taxation”[/i]
    – Hillary Clinton to an audience at the Brookings Institution

    Full quote and context:

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0510/Clinton_The_rich_are_not_paying_their_fair_share.html

    Questions:

    Define [i]the rich[/i]?

    At what percentage should corporations be taxed?

    Do you think the cost of corporate taxes are passed onto the consumer, or absorbed by corporate officers, or applied to (deducted from) corporate profits, or something else?

    At what percentage should capital gains be taxed?

    What percentage of total taxes collected should be paid by:

    – the top 5 percent of wage earners pay?
    – the top 10 percent of wage earners pay?
    – the top 50 percent of wage earners pay?
    – the bottom 50 percent of wage earners pay?

    What is the maximum percentage a person’s income should be subjected to taxation?

    Should income be taxed at all? Why or why not?

    Would you favor a consumption tax instead of an income tax?

    Would you favor a consumption tax in addition to an income tax?

    Should Social Security taxes be increased? If yes, on whom and by how much?

    Should Medicare taxes be increased? If yes, on whom and by how much?

    Should we pass on to future generations (our children and grandchildren) a system (a government) that taxes them more than it taxed us so it can pay for the promises made to us?

    Would you be willing to pass-on your personal debt to your children and grandchildren?

    Are you willing to pass-on your government debt to your children and grandchildren?

    That’s a good question to be the last.

    All questions asked with sincerity. Please answer as such. Moreover, feel free to ask your own. In due time, I’ll answer all questions myself.

    Disclaimers:

    – I do not believe that ALL taxes should be abolished. I believe taxes are a vital element to maintaining a free society.

    – I believe in the Laffer Curve.

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/06/The-Laffer-Curve-Past-Present-and-Future

    However, I’m not an absolutist on suggesting that either increased or decreased tax rates will increase (or reduce) tax revenue. For example, if the tax rate was zero percent, the revenue collected would be zero. If the tax rate was one hundred percent, the revenue collected would be zero. Therefore, the rate at which taxes are accessed and will generate the greatest amount of revenue is, at best, a percentage that’s on a sliding scale.

    Last question(s): If you agree with my [i]sliding scale[/i] suggestion, what’s the best way to zero-in on the optimal rate?

    If you don’t agree with it, why not?

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3035740

      I think it’s quite different here

      by nexs ·

      In reply to The rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. . . . .

      In Australia.
      I know that if I every decided to move to the US then I’d have many concerns. Mainly in this area.

      And health care. We have a good public heath system here, and from what I have gathered, in the US you must have private health insurance if you would like any hope of being cared for in a hospital… Not the best way to care for citizens methinks.
      But, at the end of the day, money rules the world and if there’s no way to make money from something it’ll be in danger of being scrapped for something that can be..

      Just one guy’s opinion.

    • #3035734

      Max

      by santeewelding ·

      In reply to The rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. . . . .

      Yours is the love of a policy wonk.

      Don’t misconstrue: my interest in this is intense — life-long, but revolutionary.

      Yours is evolutionary, and dead-end, as far as I am concerned. Hillary — Hillary is a zombie. Don’t you be one, too.

      (Laffer — I interviewed and grilled him once for a written piece.)

      Scrap it all. Take a cue from the Founders. They got away with what they did because what they did was all they dared get away with doing at the time.

      There are germs in what they did; germs of the radical; germs which even now might blow you away.

      This all means I take you with but light seriousness and bemusement.

    • #3035733

      A truly radical suggestion

      by jaqui ·

      In reply to The rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. . . . .

      since the unequal taxation issue isn’t new, nor really news.

      everyone, corporation and individual pays a flat rate. No deductions, no refunds.
      rate, say 7%.
      the higher your income, the more actual cash it works to, but it’s a fair exchange, since your tax percentage has dropped by roughly 18%. with no deductions to reduce amount owing, the overhead of administration of taxes is reduced, no refunds, lower overhead, and the overall amount of tax revenue has increased, making deficit budgets a very unlikely thing indeed.

      • #3035732

        All good

        by santeewelding ·

        In reply to A truly radical suggestion

        Except for that word, “deductions”. If you are in business for yourself, and I take it that you have had brushes with self-employment, then you well know there to be bottom lines, plural. Wherein, all manner of the mischievous romps.

        • #3035728

          yeah

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to All good

          but getting rid of most of the mischievous romps would actually benefit the small business owner more.

      • #3035731

        If everyone (and every Corp.) paid flat 10% tax

        by jackofalltech ·

        In reply to A truly radical suggestion

        no exceptions, no loopholes, no deductions, the govt would have more money than they knew what to do with it (for a while, anyway). But that will never happen because then they wouldn’t have any control over us and no way to get pork or bribes.

        • #3035729

          oh I know

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to If everyone (and every Corp.) paid flat 10% tax

          they would never go for it.
          it’s just to much of a good idea, and politicos can’t implement anything that would work.
          it’s in their contract. 😉

        • #3035726

          Same, Jack

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to If everyone (and every Corp.) paid flat 10% tax

          Flat 10% tax on [i]what[/i]?

          Is what you are saying coming from a wage-earner, or a corporate CFO?

        • #3035724

          everyone Santee

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Same, Jack

          corporations and individuals pay the SAME RATE.
          on their gross income.

        • #3035723

          Would that, then..

          by nexs ·

          In reply to everyone Santee

          Incur a second tax on the business owner, having the profit taxed, and then his wage (assuming he takes a wage)?

        • #3035722

          depends

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Would that, then..

          on the business setup.
          small businesses like a consultancy [ one person show ] the business income is the owners salary.

          the partnership, or “corporate entity” they have to pay themselves a salary, the business income belongs to the business not them, legally.

        • #3035721

          ok

          by nexs ·

          In reply to depends

          So a (one person) small business owner with staff under 10 who takes a wage along with his workers WILL be charged?

          I don’t mean to say that every small business owner will take a wage, but those that do won’t be happy. Nor would they be happy with changing their systems of payment, etc.

        • #3035720

          The near- entirety

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to everyone Santee

          Of what we call, “government”, exists in large part to guarantee the sanctity of commercial free association and transaction, having no little to do with, “property”.

          You, like the Founders, are fixed on, “property”. It’s why, in California, they futz and wring their hands about taxing or not taxing candy bars, not to mention, water, which “they” justify by a CRV on the plastic bottle, so as not to enrage — what’s next: air?. Excuse me. They have done that with gas stations here. Air for your tires has been by legislative fiat been declared to be, “free” — no charge, neverminding what it costs you the station owner to compress and store it in the first place. On and on…

          What, I ask, does it cost for administration of civil law? Civil law guaranteeing the sanctity of transaction? Have you studied and are you steeped in just how much of civil law has to do with the sanctity of transaction?

          Screw property. Screw income, which is property.

        • #3035655

          Well, at least they’ve gotten rid of pay toilets

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to The near- entirety

          I haven’t seen one of those since 1976. Probably the rise of homeless men led to guys walking into the rest room, observing the coin slot, and leaving a big steaming pile in front of the door rather than paying to get in. They suffered for all of us!

        • #3035668

          So consumers pay twice?

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to everyone Santee

          Since we know that corporations include their tax in the cost of goods and services.

        • #3035656

          Corporations pay twice

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to So consumers pay twice?

          Knowing that their employees have to pay taxes, in addition to buying shoes and bread and paying rent, corporations have to pay twice, too, through increased wages. Oh, the humanity!

        • #3035650

          Which they get from

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Corporations pay twice

          consumer. Inflation is the inevitable result. And inflation is the largest cause of the difference between the haves and have-nots.

        • #3035648

          Inflation is a have-less for everybody

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Corporations pay twice

          It doesn’t distinguish between haves and have-nots.

        • #3035615

          Sure, but

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Corporations pay twice

          people who can pass their extra costs along do so, so the richer you are, the less the effect.

      • #2814492

        I like the principle

        by jamesrl ·

        In reply to A truly radical suggestion

        Lets make it easy, stop all the monkey business that goes on with tax avoidance strategies which puts capital into intentionally unproductive business, radically reduce the size of the revunue service etc.

        This is not to say I think we eliminate consumption taxes. In fact I think property tax should be less, and more of the costs should be consumptive in nature. Gas taxes should go up to cover all the costs of road infrastructure, or tolls. Eliminate gas guzzler taxes which penalize the type of vehicle you buy and tax you based on your actual usage (which gives everyone an incentive to use less gas).

        James

        • #2814470

          All makes sense, James; however . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I like the principle

          ….. the reason why such common sense and simple methods of revenue collection will never come to pass – at least in the United States – is because the real purpose of the tax code is less about collecting revenue and more about controlling people.

          P.S. [i]… never come to pass – at least in the United States …[/i] At least not until enough people muster up enough gumption to take back control over their own lives. But they can’t do it with their hands out.

    • #3035707

      Sliding Scale.

      by the ‘g-man.’ ·

      In reply to The rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. . . . .

      What, just like in the UK?

    • #3035667

      It matters less

      by tonythetiger ·

      In reply to The rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. . . . .

      how much a dollar is taxed, or where it is taxed, than in [u]how many times[/u] the same dollar is taxed!

    • #3035665

      Popular Laffer curve falsehoods

      by delbertpgh ·

      In reply to The rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. . . . .

      1. America’s growth proves tax cuts work. (false)
      2. Any tax cut will therefore improve growth. (false)
      3. Tax cuts actually create more tax revenue. (false)

      I do not dispute that extreme high taxes on the investing and managerial classes will drive down national wealth. It makes sense as an argument, though the evidence of our actually measured economic performance doesn’t support it very well. For example, the 1950s were a time of great American economic power and growth, maybe the greatest ever. And it all happened under a 91% top income tax rate. At the time, the rate on capital gains was exactly half the payer’s income tax rate, so you can guess how popular it was to receive payment in kind rather than in salary. Also, at the time of high rates, tax shelter scams boomed like they never have since.

      The country continued to boom, in fact achieved unprecedented wealth across all social classes, throughout the 1960s. This was despite a 70% federal income tax and a 35% capital gains tax for the top earners. (And that’s not even counting LBJ’s 10% surtax to pay for the Vietnam war.)

      Laffer curve devotees point to Kennedy’s measures first, but it’s hard to say conclusively what impact tax cuts had. It was something popular to do during a recession. We boomed before the recession, we continued to boom after the recession, and in fact the recession ended before Kennedy’s cuts took effect. Did we grow better because of a more rational tax policy? Probably, I think, but the evidence is unclear.

      The Reagan tax cuts came at the end of a long period of stagnation and inflation, arguably caused by unbalanced government growth and deficit spending in the Johnson/Nixon years. Paul Voelker, chief of the Federal Reserve under Carter and Reagan, drove inflation out of the economy by raising interest rates to 16% and letting them fall gradually over eight years. (In 1980 I got a 30 year mortgage at 12%, and in 1981 I was able to sell the house at a substantial profit, simply because I let the buyers assume my mortgage. A new mortgage would have cost at least 16%.) The resulting economic slowdown drove millions of people out of work, but as inflation fell, interest rates fell with it, and people went back to work. Reagan showed up at this precise moment with his tax cut program. Did tax cuts cause prosperity, or was it all the other stuff? Don’t forget that Reagan also ordered a huge increase in government spending, financed on borrowed money. (Look up “stimulus spending” in your political dictionary. It makes you popular!)

      The Reagan years saw extraordinary growth, but the new national income was concentrated at the top. Everybody (i.e., workers) was producing more wealth, but the investors and managers were keeping it for themselves. It’s not surprising that as median income stagnated and top earner income boomed, taxes would increasingly be harvested from those top earners. It’s where all the new money was going. Between 1982 and 1998 Fortune 500 CEO pay increased ten fold. Were they managing their companies ten times better? You could argue that, given the opportunity to keep much more of what they got, they made sure nobody else got it. Is that really a case of greed producing a social good?

      It still made sense to me to cut taxes, mostly because 70% still seemed weirdly high. Also, I worked with a guy using computer services to match wealthy people up with tax shelters; I saw that you wouldn’t collect money from people who’d do anything to beat the tax man. A lot of money was going into bad investments, whose sole merit was they produced fictitious tax losses. That was bad for the economy. (Guess what Ronald Reagan’s 1979 tax bill was? Zero. He invested as a limited partner in a herd of beef. The partnership borrowed a huge sum of money to feed the herd, which was instantly expensed, so that the value of the partnership dropped deep in the red. Reagan’s tax loss, calculated at year end, was far larger than the money he invested. Of course, he got it all back in the next year, when the fattened herd was sold for a taxable gain, but taxes deferred is money you can use, and that means money in your pocket. News of his tax game was a mild embarassment during the election, but it didn’t make Jimmy Carter any more popular.)

      Reagan’s tax cuts definitely did not pay for themselves during the Reagan presidency. Other accountants have proved this conclusively. Maybe the distortions in income distribution helped make them pay during the Clinton presidency. When the rich guys of 1999 had all the money in the country and were driving up the price of stock that they bought from each other, it resulted in huge capital gains taxes, even though the tax rate was fairly low. (Global Crossing! PetsDotCom! Nasdaq 4500! Woo hoo!) It looked like for the first time in 30 years the government would actually run a tax surplus. Bill Clinton talked about paying the national debt down to zero. Rich guys and the Wall Street Journal started finding fault with a tax cut that actually paid for itself; they were complaining that the proportion of national income going into taxes was never so high, using statistics that seemed to argue the case, if you didn’t look closely. It was at this moment of grievous over-taxation, where billionaires could be imagined to be lining the sidewalks of Wall Street with begging bowls, just asking for the simple kindness to let them keep a little more (lots more, really) of what a prosperous nation made for them, that George W. Bush showed up, with his mix of cleverness, ineptitude, and dogma. He regarded the forecasts of multiple trillions of dollars of surplus (specious forecasts, it turned out) as an opportunity to cut taxes, to the benefit of people like him and of people who would donate cash to Republicans. With the help of a stock market disaster and a terrorist nightmare attack, he made that work. We staggered through the 2000’s in a sick, laggard recovery, despite the tax cuts; apparently the wealthy were stimulated not to produce a booming economy, but a booming credit hoax instead, which left us in the most dangerous financial crisis since 1930.

      The record isn’t clear. If you were as creative with your statistics as Arthur Laffer, you could probably support an argument that every tax cut was PRECEDED by a period of superior growth and prosperity. (That’s ridiculous, but you could argue it from selected statistics.) One result of tax cuts seems to be that income distribution is more skewed toward the rich than it was since 1929, or maybe even 1899. A lot has been going on in our society besides tax cuts that influenced prosperity and income, so nothing is as clear as ideologues, left and right, would like it to be.

      Another Laffer falsehood, implied, is that maximizing tax income is the proper objective of government, just as maximizing profit is the goal of business. It’s not. Taxing the most possible from an economy is not an optimizing strategy. You need to figure out what your country needs in the way of government services, and then provide them, and pay for them, whether that’s best for the economy or not. An economy is only one aspect of society.

      However, getting to Max’s original questions, I have a few rules of thumb. I think everybody should pay federal income taxes, from the burger flipper to the billionaire. Sharing in the tax burden encourages one to feel responsible for the country. Too many are getting away with paying nothing, and the electorate is getting to think that voting themselves checks from somebody else’s money is proper doctrine. I think that when the total of all federal and state taxes exceeds 50% of income, however high that income might be, it has become unjust. One should be able to keep at least half of what one makes. Probably that means a federal income tax rate not to exceed 40%. I think that tax cuts have a far less stimulative effect than straightforward, predictable, uncomplicated tax policy; loopholes and special breaks are a means of gaming the system, and induce unethical behavior. I don’t think long-term capital gains should be taxed at a rate lower than income; that looks to me like government telling people how they should structure their investments. Government directed private investments are rarely sound, and do not represent the optimum use of money.

      Of course, the last five years have shown us that privately directed capital can make a huge mess of things, too. Gotta stay careful, stay watchful of those rascals with their hands on all of society’s wealth. It’s one of the other things you need a government for!

      (Edited to fix typos & improve continuity)

      • #3035649

        Another problem (illustrated).

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to Popular Laffer curve falsehoods

        The valve started leaking in my toilet. Water was spraying out of the top of the valve while the tank was filling, and some of it escaped the tank.

        I could have replaced the valve for about $30, but I came up with a less expensive solution. I trimmed a plastic water bottle to fit over the valve without interfering with the moving parts.

        I saved $30.

        The government would always replace the valve.

        • #3035647

          Hope your cuffs stay dry

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Another problem (illustrated).

          Probably you’ll have to replace your toilet valve some day. Until then, you have the use of your $30.

          Consider, though: If, instead of you being personally responsible for your house, you had a landlord, you’d expect him to replace the valve. If you had hired a plumber, and he handed you a bill for $60 and said, “Congratulations, it would have been $90 but I ingeniously used a plastic bottle instead of replacing the broken part,” then you would probably been disappointed in him. And if your government, for who knows what reason, had come in and executed a slapdash fix that will some day fail, instead of replacing the whole part, I’d be reading about your complaints about “typical government shortsightedness” right here.

          By the way, have toilets gotten less reliable? I keep replacing parts every couple years, and I don’t ever remember doing that in the 60s. The damn things just plain worked.

        • #3035642

          Get yourself an Eljer

          by netman1958 ·

          In reply to Hope your cuffs stay dry

          As Al Bundy once said to Bud:
          “Get yourself an Eljer. She’ll never let you down. You can always tell an Eljer by it’s flush; it goes BAWOOSH!”

        • #3035616

          Sorry, you’re talking to the wrong guy

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Hope your cuffs stay dry

          In the 60s, we were still sh!ttin’ in the outhouse. Didn’t get indoor plumbing until 1975 🙂

        • #3035613

          No I wouldn’t

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Hope your cuffs stay dry

          [i]Consider, though: If, instead of you being personally responsible for your house, you had a landlord, you’d expect him to replace the valve.[/i]

          Because if the house gets too expensive to fix, the rent will be raised. It would be in my best interest to keep costs down.

          [i]If you had hired a plumber, and he handed you a bill for $60 and said, “Congratulations, it would have been $90 but I ingeniously used a plastic bottle instead of replacing the broken part,” then you would probably been disappointed in him. And if your government, for who knows what reason, had come in and executed a slapdash fix that will some day fail, instead of replacing the whole part, I’d be reading about your complaints about “typical government shortsightedness” right here.[/i]

          If the government had done it, it would have required 8 workers and a supervisor, and would have cost $600 (plus parts, which under contract would have been about $450) 🙂

    • #3035614

      What’s “their share”?

      by nicknielsen ·

      In reply to The rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. . . . .

      [i]Define the rich?[/i]
      The flip answer is “anybody who makes more than I do.” On second thought, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that this is the answer many people consider to be correct. A more thoughtful answer would be “anyone above the 75th percentile of annual income.”

      [i]At what percentage should corporations be taxed?[/i]
      My personal feeling is the corporate tax rate should be the same as the personal tax rate. But again, a flip answer comes to mind: Given the legal fiction and Supreme Court decisions that corporations are people, if corporations wish to act politically as if they are people, they should be treated as if they are people for tax purposes and required to consider earnings the same as an individual considers wages, with no access to the usual corporate deductions such as depreciation, expenses, etc., when determining those earnings.

      [i]Do you think the cost of corporate taxes are passed onto the consumer, or absorbed by corporate officers, or applied to (deducted from) corporate profits, or something else?[/i]
      If those costs are not included as part of the price of goods and services, whoever is running the company has a damnfool for an accountant.

      [i]At what percentage should capital gains be taxed?[/i]
      Income from any source should be taxed at the same rate.

      [i]What percentage of total taxes collected should be paid by:

      – the top 5 percent of wage earners pay?
      – the top 10 percent of wage earners pay?
      – the top 50 percent of wage earners pay?
      – the bottom 50 percent of wage earners pay?[/i]
      Again, income from any source should be taxed at the same rate.

      [i]What is the maximum percentage a person’s income should be subjected to taxation? [/i]
      Certain deductions should be considered as pre-tax income: FICA, health insurance, and retirement contributions come to mind. After those deductions, 100%. (I’m reading this question as “How much of a person’s income should be subjected to taxation.”) If you want to know what I think the maximum tax rate should be, you should have worded it that way.

      [i]Should income be taxed at all? Why or why not?[/i]
      If not income, what? A “per head” assessment against each state? VAT? Given that Americans want “smaller government,” yet they don’t want programs cut, there’s not really any other remotely equitable means of raising the money to keep government going. Yes, at a flat rate of 25% (to start), regardless of source.

      [i]Would you favor a consumption tax instead of an income tax?[/i]
      At state level, yes. At the federal level? Haven’t really looked into it.

      [i]Would you favor a consumption tax in addition to an income tax?[/i]
      Not at the federal level.

      [i]Should Social Security taxes be increased? If yes, on whom and by how much?[/i]
      I don’t think so, but we do need to do something. Either freeze benefit rates for the foreseeable future or institute means testing, or both. The problem is we have too many people becoming eligible and not enough people supporting them; no matter how high you raise the taxes, it won’t fix that problem. But, so far, Congress hasn’t got the political ‘nads to do anything other than dither.

      [i]Should Medicare taxes be increased? If yes, on whom and by how much?[/i]
      Should be able to cover this with a flat tax. For most of us, these are included in our FICA deductions, so an increase in one is seen as an increase in the other.

      [i]Should we pass on to future generations (our children and grandchildren) a system (a government) that taxes them more than it taxed us so it can pay for the promises made to us? [/i]
      No. This is our problem not our children’s problem. Although they are nice, I didn’t ask for those promises.

      [i]Would you be willing to pass-on your personal debt to your children and grandchildren?[/i]
      Damn, that’s tempting! I’d love to, but I won’t do it.

      [i]Are you willing to pass-on your government debt to your children and grandchildren?[/i]
      No, I don’t think it should happen, but given the [lack of] action in Congress to fix these problems, I probably won’t have a choice.

      [i]Last question(s): If you agree with my sliding scale suggestion, what’s the best way to zero-in on the optimal rate? [/i]
      Start at a flat rate of 25%. Watch for a couple of years, then raise it to 27%, and watch revenues. Adjust as necessary.

      edit: Unicode to ANSI

    • #3035609

      Forget income taxes

      by mjd420nova ·

      In reply to The rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. . . . .

      I think the government should eliminate INCOME taxes and instead institute a national SALES tax. That way, regardless of how much you make, when you spend it, you will pay your share. Even the illegal immigrants will have to pay their share. It might not make us very attractive to the tourists but we need to have some equity in how much the rich pay in comparison to the lower classes.

      • #3035596

        The danger of overtaxing “the rich”

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to Forget income taxes

        is that they may decide to pick up their toys and leave… THEN WHAT?

      • #3035593

        Might work

        by nicknielsen ·

        In reply to Forget income taxes

        But, then again, it might not. It would depend on the tax base, any exemptions or exclusions, and the economy and how people are spending. If the tax base was broad enough (including services and pharmaceuticals, and excluding only groceries), we might be able to get by on only 8-10%.

        South Carolina is currently learning that sales tax is a particularly unreliable form of funding for state activities. Their two largest sources of revenue are income and sales taxes.

        SC sales tax receipts in $1000 (from audit reports at http://cg.sc.gov/publications/cafrarchives.htm)
        2005 – 2,341,244
        2006 – 2,533,540
        2007 – 2,633,562
        2008 – 2,458,786
        2009 – 2,248,962

        Income tax
        2005 – 2,754,497
        2006 – 3,115,907
        2007 – 3,323,665
        2008 – 3,344,965
        2009 – 2,811,634

        You will notice that income tax receipts rise from 2005 through 2008 and only fall in 2009, well into the recession. On the other hand, sales tax revenues start to fall a year earlier, and are actually less in 2009 than in 2005.

        Caveats:
        – SC rather foolishly caps sales tax at $300 for purchases of cars, motorcycles, airplanes, and boats.
        – SC phased out the sales tax on grocery/food items starting in 2007.

        So, they have an artificially narrow tax base and a state tax rate of 5% with a maximum of 2% more for city/county sales tax. And keep in mind that most South Carolinians are almost rabidly anti-tax and consider just about anything paid to government for any reason a “tax”.

        My major complaint with a sales tax is that it is not included in the price posted on the shelf. After each tour in Europe, I was always quite irritated to arrive back in the US, and go shopping for items totaling $100 shelf price and have to fork over $107 at the register. Surprise!

        edit: getting the numbers right

        2nd edit: Sales tax figures are in thousands of dollars

        • #3035504

          Comment

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Might work

          Nick didn’t mention that our legislature pushed through major property tax reforms a couple of years back, in an effort to appeal to that rabidly anti-tax base. The state legislature mandated property taxes formerly set by the school districts, but left the schools with no replacement forms of funding.

          Technically it’s against our constitution for the state legislature to pass laws that don’t apply state-wide; that is, laws that apply only to a single municipality. When such an action is proposed, all legislators who don’t represent the affected municipality refrain from voting. The only ones who vote on the bill are the handful of reps and senators from the represented district. “You refrain from voting on bills that increase my power at home, I’ll refrain from voting on yours.” If the sumbiches are so concerned with how the local county, city, or school is run, they should have run for those offices instead.

        • #3035495

          And every d@mn one of them

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Comment

          will rant on about the sanctity of “home rule.”

          I expect that’s them ruling from their homes.

    • #3035603

      The rich pay plenty of taxes

      by av . ·

      In reply to The rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. . . . .

      I’m more concerned about the 40+% of our population that pays nothing or receives government handouts. Those people need to pay something.

      Maybe a flat tax across the board would be the fairest solution. Rich or poor, 5% of your income goes to the federal government. No more tax loopholes or tax deductions.

      I think there should be a state income tax of 5% or less, across the board. No consumption taxes.

      We need to focus on reducing the size of government instead of looking for more tax revenue to support the blob.

      AV

      • #3035576

        To what size should it be reduced?

        by drowningnotwaving ·

        In reply to The rich pay plenty of taxes

        What do you think are legitimate roles of government?

        Conversely, what are illegitimate?

        • #3035543

          To enforce standards of infrastructure

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to To what size should it be reduced?

          and to referee when citizens’ rights conflict.

        • #3035536

          Define infrastructure

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to To enforce standards of infrastructure

          Given a day or two and the inclination, I could probably make a case that everything government does now is infrastructure: defense, commerce, transport, health, education, etc., in support of the objective that we all have an equal chance to succeed.

          That’s not what I think, but I could make the case.

        • #3035518

          Did you notice…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Define infrastructure

          (and it was by specific intent) I did not say “pay for the infrastructure”?

        • #3035507

          There are those

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Did you notice…

          who would argue that the only way to enforce standards is to pay for them.

          Mind you, I’m not one of them…

        • #3035506

          A question

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to There are those

          That I may have asked here long ago:

          You are standing on broken glass and shell casings in the Oval Office, gazing out the window casing over the dwindling fires, when your First, stepping forward with a smart salute, says:

          “Your orders, Sir!”

          What are they?

          ___________

          “casing”, since that’s where the broken glass came from, being mindful of historical accuracy.

        • #3035503

          Depends.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to There are those

          Who fired the shells?

          And shouldn’t I have taken action before it reached this point?

        • #3035502

          You did

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to There are those

          As to your second question, precisely. And, what would that be?

        • #3035501

          Take out the trash

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to There are those

          It’s time to clean up this mess.

        • #3035500

          Among my thoughts, too

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to There are those

          Including the dead of whatever side, in full-dress uniform with white gloves.

        • #3035499

          Ah, I didn’t follow.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to There are those

          I assumed you meant I was already in office, the shells were intended for me, and I was being asked how to respond.

        • #3035498

          My meta-question

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to There are those

          I put (obviously) to Max.

          He has, it would seem, the verve and penmanship to contemplate any of the bureaucratic but this. As I told him at the outset, his is the love of a policy wonk.

          I want to know if he has the stomach. The way I’m reading what passes in the world, we may all need stomach.

        • #3035491

          Stomach…

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to There are those

          ‘may’ need?

        • #3035480

          Oh, I don’t know…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to There are those

          The government managed to force businesses to upgrade their facilities for handicap access without the government paying for it.

        • #3035478

          Perhaps,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to There are those

          [i]And shouldn’t I have taken action before it reached this point? [/i]

          you did!

        • #3035477

          I truly hope

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to There are those

          [i]The way I’m reading what passes in the world, we may all need stomach. [/i]

          you’re wrong, but I fear that you’re not.

        • #3035476

          Maybe

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to There are those

          [i]I assumed you meant I was already in office, the shells were intended for me,[/i]

          They were meant for your predecessor. And maybe they found him.

        • #2814551

          Thanks Tony

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to To enforce standards of infrastructure

          I agree, and I also take your later point that in general the public sector isn’t necessarily responsible for all the ‘DOING’.

          Of course it is irrelevant to you, but in our part of the world, public / private partnerships in major infrastructure have been spectacularly unsuccessful. To the point that in some cases it would have been cheaper to use the gold old state roads department to build them in the first place.

          In principle I agree that there are many case for the public sector not taking on a lot of the tasks that it does. But I feel the zeal with which some people think that the public sector should do little or no work is unjustified.

          Having said that, it is very difficult to place boundaries around the specifics as there are always significant ‘gotchas’ whenever anyone raises examples.

          I think your last point raises great discussion and a lot of inherent difficulties associated with “how big should government be?”

          Over here, there are industries created by people who look for the loopholes in government monitoring, if that is the right word, of people’s freedom being threatened. In earlier times these industries included anything from insurance sales people, real estate agents etc. Now, the examples are more isolated as the more “macro” industries are covered by licensing and legislation.

          But my point is that there is a breed of person that is sometimes half-entrpreneur / half-rip-off-artiste, who will always look to find gaps in the legislation and rip off peple accordingly.

          Caveat Emptor of course works to a degree, but in the same way we use police to protect banks, private citizens have some expectation of protection from blatant rip-off schemes.

          Or do they?

          And if they don’t, why should a bank?

          edit small keyboard, phat fingers …

        • #2814562

          As small as possible

          by av . ·

          In reply to To what size should it be reduced?

          Government (federal and state) should continue to maintain the major infrastructure and act as a watchdog over business, but they have to be more agile and do it for less. There is too much waste.

          No-bid contracts and pork barrel spending is illegitimate. Having no term limits for Congress is illegitimate. Lavish perks, pensions and other enrichments for government officials are also illegitimate.

          AV

        • #2814557

          Here’s a quandry

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to As small as possible

          [i]Lavish perks, pensions and other enrichments for government officials are also illegitimate[/i]

          Okay, I agree on the level where someone is ripping off their allowances.

          But in general, is it illegitimate to offer senior public servants the same perks that they may get in the private sector, if nothing else but to ensure that some level of seriously good talent is attracted and held?

          The Public Sector can’t do more with less, if the “less” actually means the least possible talent at the top of their tree. Can they?

          How do you see this actually working?

        • #2814555

          Maybe

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Here’s a quandry

          Running the whole affair like the military.

          I met and worked with seriously good people at the time. Dorks, too, but their effect was limited by martial law — flat-out eliminated, in serious cases.

        • #2814549

          I agree Santee

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Maybe

          but let’s face it, the Military leadership have never, throughout history, shrunk away from the perks of their job! 🙂

          I am sure there are exceptions – in many cases famous heros.

          But in the most part, Generals don’t fly cattle class and even soldiers get the pension! Both of which I feel is perfectly acceptible!

          Except those flat-out eliminated of course!

        • #2814548

          Perks

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to I agree Santee

          I would cheer if the chief of our Internal Revenue Service elected to wear a brace of pearl-handled 45s, and a silk scarf, if that’s what it took.

        • #2814432

          Where I live, public servants get way better perks than the rest of us

          by av . ·

          In reply to Here’s a quandry

          In New Jersey, public servants have pensions. Some have several. Private sector has 401ks, no pensions. Their salaries are far above what one could make in the private sector. Their health care is paid for through taxpayer dollars. The rest of us pay most of our own.

          Their unused sick time gets carried over and they get paid for it when they leave. Private sector can’t carry sick time over year to year and they lose what they don’t use. They even have their parking paid for. I have to pay my own.

          The list of perks goes on and on for public “servants”. If I had known better years ago, I would have chosen the public sector for employment. They have no problem at all attracting top talent.

          I think if they scale back all of the perks public servants get, we might be able to keep the state from going bankrupt. Put public sector jobs in line with private ones. They will still be able to compete for top talent.

          Federal government also has many, many perks.

          AV

        • #2814425

          “Public Servents”

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Where I live, public servants get way better perks than the rest of us

          True [i]public servants[/i] are far and few between. Those who work for the government, however, either federal, state, or local, are as numerous as ants at a picnic. But they no more [i]serve the public[/i] than the man in the moon. Considering their higher wages, better benefits, and job security, they really [i]serve[/i] only themselves; if anything, the public [i]serves[/i] them.

          I question the honesty of anyone who works for the government and claims to do so in order to [i]serve the public[/i]. (I make exceptions, however, for most of the military; some, but not all, of those who enter into public teaching; and some, but not all, of those who enter into law enforcement.) I know, and have known, a LOT of government employees, and without exception, they’ve all done it for the pay, the benefits, and the job security. In short, they see it as a better deal than they might otherwise find in the private sector.

          Needless to say, I despise the term [i]public servants[/i]. Moreover, most of the true [i]public servants[/i] I’ve seen do it from the private sector, and they provide [i]their service[/i] for free.

          Let the [i]public servant’s[/i] feathers be ruffled. I don’t care.

          P.S. And Labor Unions for public employees should be illegal. It’s the epitome of a conflict of interest.

        • #2814420

          “Public servants” is an oxymoron

          by av . ·

          In reply to “Public Servents”

          “Considering their higher wages, better benefits, and job security, they really serve only themselves; if anything, the public serves them.”

          Truer words were never spoken. There are exceptions as you stated. Police, fire and military personnel deserve the extra benefits. Teachers should too, but they have to get rid of their unions and tenure. Public education isn’t doing the job because teachers are guaranteed a job once they get tenure. That has to move to merit-based pay based on performance.

          Their feathers should be ruffled. Its about time. Lucky NJ has a new Republican governor, Chris Christie, that is doing just that. The sense of entitlement from public sector employees is absolutely nauseating. Finally, someone is willing to make the hard choices. I think I’m in love.

          AV

        • #2814417

          AV

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to “Public Servents”

          I really, really, really, really like your new governor.

          Really, I do!

          Can we have him?

        • #2814401

          You can’t have him

          by av . ·

          In reply to “Public Servents”

          I hope he runs for President.

          AV

        • #2814380

          Av – Hope that Chris Christie DOES NOT run for president (in 2012)

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to “Public Servents”

          New Jersey – like so many other states – is facing some very difficult and challenging financial times, and they can’t be solved in just a couple of years. It will take some long-term planning and dedication.

          I hope you have Governor Christie for at least two terms (I don’t know if your state has term limits). I also hope that the New Jersey State Legislature is (or will be) of like-mind as your governor, one that will work with him to implement meaningful financial reform, and will not yield to the partisan demagogues who will undoubtedly try block his efforts with the scare-tactics and character assassinations that have become the norm. Of course, that’s up to you – the voters of New Jersey – to fill your State House and Senate with like-minded people.

          I actually believe the federal government should yield to the states to solve those problems, not the other way around. New Jersey’s circumstances, problems, and solutions are different than California’s, different than Colorado’s, different than Arizona’s, different than New York’s, etc., and as such, each state should be able to address them individually. I hope that you – and Governor Christie – succeed and show other states how they might solve their own financial problems.

          I will say this, however. Governor Christie is only 47 years old. If he can make some real progress in New Jersey after two full terms in office – and especially if some other states follow his lead – he’ll have an absolutely great platform to run for national office – i.e. the presidency. The best time would be 2020, maybe 2016; but you don’t want to lose him in 2012. At least I wouldn’t want to lose him if he were the governor of my state, especially considering the fact that presidential politics is different than state politics.

          Maybe he will be the next Reagan-type presidential candidate; but, like Reagan, let’s hope he has two successful terms as governor first – and to build upon.

        • #2814361

          most of the military

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to “Public Servents”

          Just wondering how many you think would be in the Military if their service was required for no salary, perks or pensions?

          It was tried, by the way, just a few times over the last 2 millenia …

          Why is it that most western Governments have had to significantly improve every aspect of the [b]employment agreement[/b] with their military recruits over the last 20 years, if the recruits are truly doing it for the good of the nation?

          edit p,unct’ion.

        • #2814358

          How many would be in the Military?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to “Public Servents”

          You asked, [i]Just wondering how many you think would be in the Military if their service was required for no salary, perks or pensions?[/i]

          Just like 1941, as many as necessary to win and defend freedom.

          They actually lied (about whatever) to get in.

        • #2814349

          but interestingly

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to “Public Servents”

          … they all got paid, with perks.

          Let’s not degrade this into a “are you questioning the loyalty of my military men?” argument.

          I’m not.

          I am pointing out that, with significant historical precedent, Kingdoms and thence Nations learnt that a purely Volunteer Force, on its own, was less likely to win than a paid professional Army / Military.

          To the point that, now, such a purely voluntary force does not exist in the western nations.

          I am using this as a specific point with which to question your premise regarding who, and how long, is prepared to work in a public sector role for either free or less than the lowest wage earner.

          You said you trusted the military more than other examples of publicly paid employees, so let’s use that as the example.

        • #2814346

          Do you want all civil servants to be low paid and low skilled?

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to “Public Servents”

          I worked for an agency of the Canadian Federal Government for a few years. As such my organization was run like a business with a board of directors (most from private industry, some from government). We did reseceive research funds from the government, but we were expected to pay operational budgets from our revenue.

          So saying all that, our salary scales were based on Federal Government standards.

          Certainly we were not paid as well as the best in private industry. We looked to pay on average the median wage in the industry – 50% of organizations paid more, 50% less. We made up for it with a generous pension plan. We needed to, or private industries would be paoching all the staff, and we’d spend even more money constantly training new staff.

          As for job security, I was laid off, as were about 15% of the Federal workforce between 1995 and 2004. Now I know its Canada, and not the US, but if we can do it (under a Liberal Prime Minister even) so can you.

          I do think that there should be less job security than there is in most government positions.

        • #2814337

          Good question

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to “Public Servents”

          [i]Why is it that most western Governments have had to significantly improve every aspect of the employment agreement with their military recruits over the last 20 years, if the recruits are truly doing it for the good of the nation?[/i]

          Because they aren’t just doing it for the good of the nation. There as many other reasons as there are members of the military. But all of them have one thing in common: since 1974, every one entering the American military has voluntarily, without threat of conscription, sworn an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” In taking that oath, each has written a blank check, payable to the United States of America, for an amount up to, and including, his or her life.

          Isn’t that worth a little bit more than minimum wage?

        • #2814335

          Of course it is !!

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to “Public Servents”

          But it still doesn’t answer the question:

          If you didn’t pay them anythying, how many people would be in your military?

        • #2814334

          Good remark

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to “Public Servents”

          Not only good, but stellar.

        • #2814333

          What about Politicians?

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to “Public Servents”

          [i]I question the honesty of anyone who works for the government and claims to do so in order to serve the public.

          Their salaries are far above what one could make in the private sector. Their health care is paid for through taxpayer dollars.

          “Considering their higher wages, better benefits, and job security, they really serve only themselves; if anything, the public serves them.”

          Truer words were never spoken. [/i]

          With sentiment like this, I can only surmise that, since a Politician is the highest level of public service, they too should pretty much volunteer their time?

          Bringing back the brown paper bag to politics, perhaps?

        • #3026273

          Disregard

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to “Public Servents”

          Posted in the wrong spot.

        • #2814394

          Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Where I live, public servants get way better perks than the rest of us

          How does a government entity operate BETTER if it reduces its salaries and “perks”, as you call them?

          What sort of talent would you attract?

          – GIVEN you both already claim that someone who works in a Public entity cannot possibly be doing it from the goodness of their heart.

          [b][i]Put public sector jobs in line with private ones. They will still be able to compete for top talent[/b][/i].

          “Private Ones” can offer anything they want. That you don’t get such conditions AV, is either a reflection of you, your selected job or your employer, no-one else.

          I get a great salary, a car-park, a car, and free lunch and breakfast. I work in the Private sector.

          Max, your attack on the freedoms of other people are nothing short of breathless.

          Why should any group of people, members of your society, have their capability and legal right to association diminished because YOU think the government is too big???

          Freedom or restriction? You were pretty quick out of the block on that one.

        • #2814379

          Actually we’re long on solutions

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          But, for some reason, you’re just not paying attention.

        • #2814376

          Specifically to your questions:

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          [i]How does a government entity operate BETTER if it reduces its salaries and “perks”, as you call them?[/i]

          That government which governs least, governs best. I agree with Mr. Jefferson in that regard. You and I apparently have a [i]Conflict of Visions[/i] (credit to Thomas Sowell) regarding the role of government in individual lives. You apparently want more, while I want less.

          [i]What sort of talent would you attract?[/i]

          True [i]public servants[/i], I suppose. Those who wish to truly GIVE their time and expertise to the people, not take from them. Moreover, it’s the private sector that drives the greatness of America, not the public sector. (It’s that [i]Conflict of Visions[/i] thing again.)

          [i]GIVEN you both already claim that someone who works in a Public entity cannot possibly be doing it from the goodness of their heart.[/i]

          I do make that claim. Taking a $70,000 salary over a $50,000 salary is anything but the goodness of one’s heart – especially if that additional $20,000 is taken from the private sector folks earning less.

          [i]Put public sector jobs in line with private ones. They will still be able to compete for top talent.[/i]

          The public sector should not compete at all with the private sector. Their respective roles are – or should be – different. (It’s that [i]Conflict of Visions[/i] thing again.)

          [i]”Private Ones” can offer anything they want.[/i]

          You’re actually incorrect – terribly incorrect. The private sector can only offer as much as the free-enterprise market will allow. The private sector cannot raise prices at will, but only as much as the public will tolerate. The government, on the other hand, can raise taxes, print money, and accumulate debt – on the backs of the taxpayer – unlike any private entity is able. Therefore, any competition between the two is not only unfair, but tilted towards the government’s favor.

          [i]I get a great salary, a car-park, a car, and free lunch and breakfast. I work in the Private sector.[/i]

          Good for you. I don’t begrudge that, nor do I judge that. I’m sure your hard work makes you deserving. But TAX DOLLARS do not pay for it.

          [i]Max, your attack on the freedoms of other people are nothing short of breathless.[/i]

          Excuse me? I don’t try to restrict anyone’s freedom – unless it infringes upon the freedom of others. And true freedom is not two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.

          [i]Why should any group of people, members of your society, have their capability and legal right to association diminished because YOU think the government is too big???[/i]

          Why should a [i]big government[/i] advocate trump my [i]less government[/i] preference? I can live my life just fine without infringing on their freedoms, but they can’t possibly live theirs without infringing on mine.

          [i]Freedom or restriction? You were pretty quick out of the block on that one. [/i]

          No I wasn’t. See above.

          By the way, you’re just another Australian suggesting to an American how to best govern himself. Why is it that I’ve never – NEVER – seen an American suggest anything to an Australian regarding how he should or should not govern himself?

        • #2814375

          It’s because

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          Nobody gives a shilt about Australia.

        • #2814373

          Santee

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          Re: [i]Name That Tune[/i]

          You win yet again!

        • #2814363

          Your time is appreciated

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          No Max, like you following much discussion on this and other areas I have learned a lot, and do believe in LESS government. What I struggle with is how much less and how, in very practical terms, this can be made to work.

          I want to get off the soap-box, roll up the sleeves and see what is necessary in the real world.

          [b]That government which governs least, governs best [/b] speaks nothing to how to attract quality people into a limited government role and manage accordingly.

          My take would be to hire the absolute best, target them to whatever appropriate change you wish to see, and pay them appropriately in both cash and kind – whatever the open market requires to attract the same.

          [b]Taking a $70,000 salary over a $50,000 salary is anything but the goodness of one’s heart – especially if that additional $20,000 is taken from the private sector folks earning less.[/b]

          Are you serious? Do you truly see this as a long-term strategy for success? Is your only definition of a “good” public servant someone who works for free, or less than the lowest wage earner?

          Do you genuinely beleive that there exists a pool of dedicated and highly talented people willing to work for a long-term career at less than your lowest wage category for the good and betterment of all other folk in the society?

          IMHO it sounds more like a soap-box seminar rather than a sound strategy.

          And does your strategy spread across all endeavours of payment by the public purse?

          [b]The public sector should not compete at all with the private sector. Their respective roles are – or should be – different. (It’s that Conflict of Visions thing again.)[/b]

          This seems a somewhat trite statement. Given the source of employees is the open market, to suggest that the “Public Sector” can’t compete is just silly. Where should they go for candidates – the Vatican?

          [b]Why should a big government advocate trump my less government preference? I can live my life just fine without infringing on their freedoms, but they can’t possibly live theirs without infringing on mine.[/b]

          You skillfully, as is your talent, [i]avoided the question[/i].

          Why should a group of people in your or my society work in conditions and rules that are significantly different to you and me?

          I have the right of association and the right to collectively bargain, whether or not I choose to use it. Why should they not have that right, simply because their employer is the public sector?

          (Given that the work “right” in this case refers to legal and common law enablements and protections, and given also I am talking your comman garden variety “Jo-ann Treasury Clerk”, not a member of the FBI).

          Would such restrictions serve to increase the appeal of talented people to the pool of available resoureces?

          Re Australian:

          If you note, I have only ASKED. I have not SUGGESTED anything.

          The only time I mentioned conditions over here I prefaced same with “I know this is irrelevant”; it was just for the discussion of failed “Less is Better” policy adoption.

          Again, you constantly point to LESS GOVERNMENT but don’t say HOW MUCH LESS or HOW MUCH IS OKAY, nor really much about [b]how[/b] to make LESS work better.

          If being asked questions from someone overseas offends, hey I’ll apologise. It was not the intention. 🙂

          edit shpellingk – take a bow and make a box!

        • #2814355

          Don’t feel pregnant

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          Max ignored me, too, a long while back when I took up, “government”, with him in my alien way.

          The two of you are speaking right past each other with your use of, “government”. The fallout is completely predictable.

        • #2814306
        • #2814303

          Some comment

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          Read them all – they weren’t onerous. Even read the piece on NJ’s Christie.

          Well on the face of it – phew – there do seem to be some “out there” clauses of employment.

          Notwithstanding I am sure that the figures are questionable, e.g. Nick Neilsen’s post with research, and the discrepancy between some of the figures include in all the articles, no doubt about it your Federal government employees are on a good wicket.

          (Trying hard to avoid comment on your local issues … )

          Here’s the thing and I’ll try very hard to limit to few questions –

          * If you want a smarter, better, smaller public service – for instance one that manages a lot of things that are ultimately supplied by the private sector, how do you do it ?

          * Do you seriously think that can be acheived by paying LESS to get the people of the calibre that can manage such enterprises?

          * Alternately do you think it will be such a doddle that any person can do it?

          (PS: My take is that in your ideal government, with as small a government populous as possible, the average wage of government employees will raise significantly. There should be heaps fewer of them, capable of managing large outsourced projects on behalf of the folks. An analogy is when the backs of the mining sector unions were broken: HEAPS less workers, but those that remained earn truckloads for higher skilled work).

          * How do you do it if you insist that, in the employment of staff, the public sector cannot compete with the private sector?

          And finally:

          * If being able to freely associate and collectively bargain is an accepted “norm” / enabled right (whatever term suits) in your society, why on earth should the subset who just work for the public sector NOT be afforded the same norms/rights?

          It would seem to me that your prblem is not with the Union. It’s with 25 years of government who have enabled this to happen.

          {NOT THAT YOU CARE BUT We too have had similar issues. The public service conditions over here much more closely align with ‘standard’ conditions most workers enjoy.

          Over the last 20 years and, funnily enough, in many cases commencing with (our equivalent of your Democrats), simple concepts of ‘tenure’, of not being made redundant, of not being able to be sacked, have been radically reduced. Not many PS workers expect or consider they have a job for life. Albeit they may expect their chances of employment in the private sector are scarce. I think, as one of your articles commented regarding your past, they forego the opportunity for large salaries on the basis of some more protection than the average private sector worker.

          The conditions under which workers can be terminated are identical in public and private sectors as these are structured in our IR laws.

          NOT that you care.

        • #3026280

          One at a time – the competition question

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          The business of government is governing; it should not be in the business of business. The business of business is business; it should not be in the business of governing.

          Having said that, I believe that the role of government in the United States has infringed into the business of business way too much. As such, the first step in getting less of it is not getting more of it. Stop the growth first, and work on reversing the growth later.

          There are more government employees today than there were a year ago, while employment in the private sector has lost jobs. Think about the dynamics in place. Less money is being made in the private sector, yet those earning less must now pay more to support those in the government sector. That’s not the halt in government growth I would expect. It’s not government serving the people, but rather the other way around; and that is wrong.

          Nonetheless, to my comment about competition between the government employer and the private employer. I don’t necessarily mean that as an absolute, so it would be a mistake to take it as one.

          For example, local building departments need qualified and competent engineers to review building plans, inspect building sites for code compliance, and so on. As such, salary and benefits offered for such a position should be commensurate with the industry norm.

          But the government goes too far. For example, civil engineers industry wide, can expect to earn between $50,000 and $80,000 salaries. Civil engineers working for the government routinely earn well over $100,000. Moreover, the benefits offered are well above the private industry norm, oftentimes valued at $25,000 or more. And that doesn’t include the lush defined-benefits retirement package. It’s not uncommon for a life-long government employee to retire at a young age (55-60) with a life-long benefit of $60,000 – $80,000 per year.

          But here’s where the competition is unfair. Private industry simply cannot provide those kinds of things because they must make a profit in order to remain solvent. The government has no such profit motive to keep wages and benefits in-check with what the market will bear. Private businesses can’t increase prices at-will to support such spending, while government can raise taxes and/or operate with perpetual deficits and/or print money. Private business can’t pass-on debt to future generations. Private business would go bankrupt – and its officers sent to jail – if they operated the way government does. It’s obvious that the two operate on unlevel playing fields and by a different set of rules.

          Moreover, there are really two kinds of government jobs: those that can ONLY be performed by government (military, elected office, and so on); and then there are those that could be performed by the private sector.

          Keeping with my engineering analogy, there’s absolutely no reason why the government couldn’t put out to bid myriad government engineering needs – reconciling park service maps with satellite photos, as just one example. Why pay a government employee $120,000 per year plus perks up the ying-yang when it could be put out to bid in the private sector and get done just as well?

          The government OWES the taxpayer the best value – the best bang for the buck. Giving such jobs to government employees is tantamount to giving no-bid contracts.

          Competition for the best and the brightest is fine – as long as both parties are playing by the same rules. Unfortunately, the government can change the rules at-will to its own favor.

          Bottom line: IF the private sector can perform a function just as well – or possibly better – than the government sector, then that function should be put out to bid in the private sector. (Can anyone spell USPS?)

          And it’s worth repeating:

          Private business would go bankrupt [b]- and its officers sent to jail -[/b] if they operated the way government does. It’s obvious that the two operate on unlevel playing fields and by a different set of rules.

        • #3026275

          “To govern”

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          Is a [i]transitive[/i] verb, Maxwell. You present it as [i]intransitive[/i].

          Am I mistaken that “government” has something to do with what you are saying?

        • #3026272

          Damn, Santee!!

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          Ask me that question in the morning over a cup of coffee; not during happy hour after a couple glasses of scotch!

          Nonetheless, regardless of the difference between transitive verbs and intransitive verbs, if you can’t discern the difference between [i]what I said[/i] and [i]what I mean[/i], then perhaps you should knock yourself down a few notches and join the rest of the world. I would think pretty it’s lonely up there in your literary ivory tower.

          (Maybe I should have used the (non)word [i]irregardless[/i] and really pushed your buttons!)

          Have a nice evening, Santee; and thanks for the chuckle.

          Cheers!

        • #3026270

          Okay …

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          NOW I understand a lot more. My response to the soap-box-like comments was perhaps understandable, perhaps over the top.

          It appears from the information that you have presented that YOUR public service employees in some circumstances have certainly been able to take advantage of the largesse of successive governments of all persuasions.

          It may well be time to ‘break’ the Union.

          I can’t see how you can take away people’s right/privilege to actually BE in a Union.

          [i]As such, salary and benefits offered for such a position should be commensurate with the industry norm.[/i]

          100% agreed and over here they pretty much are. Generaly a little less but the return to the employee is a little less stress and a little more job security, although not guaranteed whatsoever.

        • #3026268

          One at a time – public employee unions

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          As a disclaimer, let me say this. I have no problem with labor unions. In fact, I acknowledge the positive things that have resulted from them – especially during the first half of the twentieth century.

          However, I believe that labor unions have grown too big for their britches, so to speak. Intimidation tactics, bribery, and political influence are synonymous with labor unions.

          Having said that, the role of government is to serve the public. The role of unions is to serve the worker (or so they claim, but some might argue that it’s to serve themselves). There’s an obvious conflict of interest.

          Building on my previous post, put government functions out to bid in the private sector, irregardless (for you, Santee) of whether those private bidders are union or non-union shops.

          Bottom line: Unionized government employees present an obvious conflict of interest. And the public interest should be the trump card, not the losing hand.

        • #3026267

          Max

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          I’m serious.

          Take the verb, “to exist”.

          It is intransitive. You don’t get to go outside the concept for definition. Nothing relative can serve you. Even lexicographers have problems with it. The Collegiate, for example, has it as, “to come into being”, which is relative and transitive.

          To present government as intransitive — self-occupied — is to present it as a giant ingrown toenail. You help no one with your explanations. All you do is bitch about the pain of (unions) and (taxes).

        • #3026264

          Re Unions

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          We’ll agree to disagree.

          All workers, with very few exceptions, deserve the right to association and collectively bargain.

          YES the Union / Employer pendulum swings and sometimes wildly. Your statement: [i]Intimidation tactics, bribery, and political influence are synonymous with labor unions[/i] could also be said for companies in ‘the good ol days’ and in particular of PS employers / employees throughout history.

          Indeed one of the specific reasons for impoving working conditions of many PS employees, in our neck-o-woods, was to reduce such temptation and activity. They often were, truly, the “brown paper bag” days.

          In this case, my take is that the “public right” exists, no doubt. But so does the “public duty” to ensure that the public sector workers are paid / managed / whatever in a manner commensurate with prevailing employment conditions, including their right to be represented by Unions.

          As mentioned, that your PS Unions have taken the mickey out of the Government, is as much (if not more) the fault of the government than the Union.

          Unless I am mistaken, even (many of) your police forces have Association / collective representation, as does ours, often involved in negotiating employment conditions.

        • #3026262

          Collective Bargaining repartee

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          In our neck-o-woods, our most recent government (prior to the current govt that is) was HUGELY successful, in terms of reducing unemployment to its lowest in decades, reducing prevailing interest rates AND puting our government into a massive operating surplus.

          The “step too far” was an attempt to cease collective bargaining.

          Even though Union membership has dropped over the last 20 years, even though a lot of people feel their role either redundant or self-serving, this fundamental threat to (what we consider) a fundamental social privilege proved THE major reason why that government was brought down.

          Just a digression.

        • #3026261

          And, you, drowningnotwaving

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          Are an enabler to a man drunk with impossibility.

        • #3026260

          That may well be true

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          🙂 but I am learning and discussing and it’s civil (well IMHO of course), so is there truly an issue?

          I would submit my reaction in earlier posts reflects what was written, clearly not necessarily in all cases what was fully meant (upon delving).

        • #3026259

          “. . . . . with very few exceptions . . . . .”

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          You said, [i]”All workers, with very few exceptions, deserve the right to association and collectively bargain.”[/i]

          My exception is government workers. What are your exceptions?

        • #3026258

          Thank you, Santee, for that lesson in grammar

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          We would all be lost and totally illiterate without you.

        • #3026240

          My exception

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          Would be the Military. I think you sign up and you sign over.

          I am sure there are nefarious arms of various security bodies that may fall into the same category.

          I think all other employees deserve to have the same opportunities afforded them as, well, other employees.

          Does something being in the “Public Interest” remove public’s obligation? Surely not – IMHO of course.

        • #3026236

          Was not, Max

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          A lesson in grammar.

          It was touch to the hem of Absolute Reason.

          It was, once upon a time, alluded to by [b]drowningnotwaving[/b], as the spaces between the keys, without which, you got no keys or “government”.

        • #3026222
        • #3026213

          Okay then …

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          So your answer to your incompetent government managers and politicians is to take away the “rights” (at least those privileges enjoyed by a major slab of the population) from another major slab of the population?

          Your answer includes, whilst qualified later, still (seemingly?) includes wholesale stripping wage and conditions from major slabs of those employed by the State.

          Go back to the top then – how will you attract and retain the talent necessary to operate this uber-tightly-managed public sector operation?

          PS I have to say your blaming the ‘existence’ of the Unions for this debacle that many of your States seem to find themselves in, smacks of “lack of responsibility” and “blaming someone else”.

          Your insistence that a group of employees – one that no matter what is done will remain a large sector of the workforce – cannot enjoy the same freedom that the rest of the workforce enjoys, flies in the face of, well, Freedom. Such is your stance and by such juxtapositions will you be seen.

          The world has shown – America has shown – unfairly strong Unions can be broken. As can unfairly harsh employers. You don’t need to BAN them to break them, and BANNING them doesn’t appear to necessarily work in the long run (a.k.a the ANC and Solidarity to name the upper echelons).

          As you should know, Max from your strong and emotive pleas re freedom: Societies who get into the habit of BANNING things in the hope that they stop fundamenal human spirit, either get into a long slope of continual banning OR simply fail.

        • #3026212

          As Mort Zuckerman said

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          There other methods of curtailing the power of unions and the methods in which employment conditions are negotiated.

          [i]We have to escape this cycle or it will crush us. One way is to take labor negotiations out of the hands of vulnerable legislators and assign them to independent commissions. They would have a better shot at achieving a fair balance between appropriate salary increases and the revenues and services of local municipalities. The electorate won’t swallow any more red ink.[/i]

          I did read your articles. 🙂

        • #3026138

          But you missed the most important point

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          As I previously said, labor unions in the free market place are fine. Knock yourselves out. Let business management and the consumer decide whether or not to capitulate to union demands.

          If a chain of grocery stores goes union, and prices are increased and/or customer service decreases as a result, the customers who oppose it can vote with their feet and their dollars.

          There’s a reason union membership has been on the decline for several decades in the United States, and that’s because the consumer didn’t want them anymore, and their excessive demands bankrupted not only businesses, but entire industries.

          Government is different. The government is a monopoly. There is no other consumer choice.

          It’s not right that union demands result in higher prices for the consumer – the taxpayer – who has no other option. And letting the business of government go bankrupt is not an option. On second thought, maybe that is the best option. Then people might get their heads out of wherever they’ve been planted and realize that government – just like unions – has gotten too big for its britches. It is too bad that entire industries – or governments – have to be destroyed for them to see it.

          By the way, labor unions and socialism are not too distant cousins. They both have very common roots.

        • #3026127

          Gentlemen, thank you for your time

          by dwdino ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          but I digress…

        • #3026088

          Perhaps, Max

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          Government should award jobs the same way they award other contracts… to the lowest bidder 🙂

        • #3026087

          The problem I have with unions

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          is the “closed shop” concept. Long ago I was in a situation where I actually LOST money when the shop went union (I voted ‘no’). For a union to come in and force a change to a contract I personally had with my employer, and that we were both happy with just seemed wrong.

        • #3026086

          Another scam of public employee unions

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          Overtime equalization.

          When management makes a mistake and calls in the wrong person, union members are told NOT to point it out beforehand… that way the “wrong person” gets the overtime, and the person who grieves it gets compensated as if he had worked the hours.

        • #3026073

          Digging out such a big hole won’t be easy

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          As your commentators put it – the collusion between the Union leadership and the Politiciansin their various legislatures is mind-numbing. Who heard of a Union politicking for MORE taxes??

          I agree, these small examples are unbeleivable. What ideas?

          Separating the Legislature from the employment negotiations is one way.

          Moritorium on all wages, perks and new hires for X years (say, until such time as the unfunded component of the pension fund is funded).

          Outsourcing the “pension fund” to a more traditional 401K style of fund, at the same percentage contribution as ‘the general population’.

          Getting more Christies with the real guts to cease programmes that can’t be afforded and accelerate the outsourcing of activiies that, as you say Max, should not be the provenance of Government.

          TONY Absolutely banning the concept of the ‘closed shop’. Agreed 100%. For the most part we have one this but there are still small pockets / industries that keep their monopoly.

          Curtailing your entire Lobby industry, of which your PS Unions seem to have learned how to do it very well.

          On examination I am sure these ideas are a) not original and b) full of holes. I don’t mean them to be flippant nor do I think they are “well just do it and it will work”.

          But I am pretty sure that banning people from association is a proven, failed strategy and (looking from the outside) doesn’t address the issues of your politician’s agendas.

          It’s your politician’s agendas that are the issue, according to the majority of the notes Max included.

          Best of luck.

        • #3026041

          Times are tough everywhere

          by av . ·

          In reply to Both you and Max complain, but are short on solutions

          The perks offered to public employees today are simply unsustainable. Its paid for by taxpayer dollars and with high unemployment, at 9.7 percent where I live, there are plenty of people that will do it for less.

          Public employees have always been in it for the many perks they get. They don’t care about anything else but themselves.

          Yes, there are companies that offer you more perks, but that is the exception and not the rule nowadays.

          Government is too big and too costly for the rest of us to support and its time for the gravy train to stop. I’ve never taken advantage of government services personally, but some people make their living by doing just that, at the expense of the rest of us. That has to stop and its time for people to take responsibility for themselves.

          AV

        • #2814351

          WRONG SPOT *kiddie friendly

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Where I live, public servants get way better perks than the rest of us

          NOW THERE’S A PIP wrong spot

        • #2814348

          drowningnotwaving

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to WRONG SPOT *kiddie friendly

          Have you no moral code?

          Think of the children…

        • #2814350

          That’s a pretty broad brush

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Where I live, public servants get way better perks than the rest of us

          That’s also New Jersey. Here’s the situation in South Carolina, and, I suspect, many other states without public employee unions. (Numbers in [-brackets-] refer to links at bottom.)

          [i]In New Jersey, public servants have pensions. Some have several. Private sector has 401ks, no pensions.[/i]

          In SC, public employees have pensions. If they are eligible for more than one, they choose one and only one. By law, they contribute 6.5% of pre-tax income; they have no choice. [-1-] If they want a 401(k), that comes from what’s left.

          [i]Their salaries are far above what one could make in the private sector. [/i]

          Average annual pay for SC state employees in 2009 was $36,931. [-2-] DOL reports the mean wage in SC as $37,040 as of May 2009. [-3-]

          Some current IT job listings in SC [-4-]:

          Senior DBA (Oracle Master Cert preferred), hiring at $63,877-$82,930 annually
          Computer Operator II (mainframe), hiring at $24,881-$28,000 annually
          Help desk technician (temp/part time), $8.50/hour

          [i]Their health care is paid for through taxpayer dollars. The rest of us pay most of our own.[/i]

          For full family coverage on the standard plan, the state pays $602.56 per month and the individual pays $294.58. For the cheapest available HMO plan, the state’s contribution remains the same, while the individual’s cost jumps to $741.22. [-5-][-6-]

          [i]Their unused sick time gets carried over and they get paid for it when they leave.[/i]

          Up to a maximum of 90 days. Not bad for 30 years.

          [i]Private sector can’t carry sick time over year to year and they lose what they don’t use. [/i]

          Nothing in law says they can’t carry it over, but the accounting is so much easier when you can start accounts payable from zero each year.

          [i]They even have their parking paid for. I have to pay my own.[/i]

          I suspect almost 61,000 SC state employees would love that, because they have to pay for their own, too.

          Some of the other “perks” in SC:
          * No overtime pay. Comp time is exchanged for overtime on an hour-for-hour basis.
          * Traveling? Use your own car. Mileage is reimbursed at $.505 or the IRS rate, whichever is less.
          * Away from the office for the day? Meal costs reimbursed in full, as long as the total is $25 or less. Breakfast – $6, lunch – $7, supper – $12. [-7-]

          And the best part, all those happy customers, every one of which knows
          a) you are overpaid;
          b) you are under-worked;
          c) your only objective is to keep them from getting what they deserve; and
          d) the only reason you work for the state is because you can’t hack it in the real world.

          =====

          Links:
          1. SC Retirement System – Active Members
          2. Employee Demographics (one-page PDF)
          3. May 2009 State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates
          South Carolina

          4. SC Jobs Portal
          5. 2010 Employee Benefits Guide
          6. Insurance Rates
          7. Travel Regulations

        • #3026058

          Max, I definitely do not want to lose Christie in 2012

          by av . ·

          In reply to Where I live, public servants get way better perks than the rest of us

          He is our white knight on a shining horse in NJ. He says that he doesn’t care if he is a one term governor, he’s just going to do what we elected him to do – cut the government. Its tough to elect a Republican in this very blue state, but FINALLY, people showed up to vote because the state is nearly bankrupt.

          I have to pinch myself when he talks about capping our property taxes at 2.5 percent per year. We pay the highest in the nation. It isn’t uncommon for people to pay $15-$20,000 per year in property taxes because thats how we fund our very corrupt school system.

          Taxpayers sent a message this time. I’d love to have him as governor for two terms. So far, he is ruffling a whole lot of feathers, but is receiving bipartisan support for most things and most important, the taxpayers support him. The unions, particularly the teacher’s union, are pulling out all the stops to defend their fiefdom, but it doesn’t work with him. He stands his ground.

          The Dems don’t like that he won’t impose a millionaire’s tax to close the budget gap. They tried to introduce a bill, but he said outright he will veto it. He is making deep cuts in government waste instead and I think thats great. No more gravy train for the entitled.

          I think each state has their own unique problems and its up to them to solve their issues. The federal government has enough to deal with.

          If Chris Christie can make this state fiscally sound, I have great hopes for him as the next Reagan one day. He is a strong leader, honest and he doesn’t back down. He doesn’t tell you what you want to hear, but he tells it like it is.

          AV

        • #3026053

          Property Taxes

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to Max, I definitely do not want to lose Christie in 2012

          Just a question – are these analagous to what we call “Council Rates”?

          That is, the amount paid annually by all residents (or more accurately according to each specific adress) in a local government area, to assist funding the operation of that Local Government?

          Further, our rates are a function of the “unimproved land value” of the property, which is established, and increased annually, by an quasi-independent Board.

          Our rates are relatively “expensive” – we pay about $1,850 per year for our property.

          Is this the same thing?

        • #3026033

          Part of it is for what you call Council Rates

          by av . ·

          In reply to Max, I definitely do not want to lose Christie in 2012

          The problem is that only a small portion of property taxes provides for the local government. The rest of the taxes go to fund the schools.

          For example, the portion of my taxes to support the local government is about $1500 per year. I pay about $8200 per year in property taxes though. The rest of it goes to fund the schools.

          Mind you, the only government services I have is when the plow the roads in the winter during snow storms. I maintain my own well, septic system and pay for garbage removal outside of that.

          AV

        • #3026031

          Don’t forget to duck, AV

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Max, I definitely do not want to lose Christie in 2012

          With that kind of talk, you’ll be called a racist, a hate-monger, a greedy SOB (or DOB), selfish, self-centered, and mean-spirited.

          That’s what they do, you know.

        • #3027841

          Yeah, I know

          by av . ·

          In reply to Max, I definitely do not want to lose Christie in 2012

          I have my flack jacket on. I guess I’m just jaded. I don’t mind paying my fair share, but things are out of hand now because the public money has run out. Such is the problem with entitlement programs. Eventually the gravy train dries up.

          I’m a strong believer in personal responsibility and I think that is also in short supply today. I’m not asking anyone else to make up my losses to my retirement accounts from the great recession. Thats my problem and I’m going to have to work longer. It sucks, but thats how it goes.

          I’m no millionaire, just a middle class person who has worked and saved for most of the 40 years I’ve been working only to see a big chunk of it ripped off in the great recession and then to see the government try to take what is left to give to someone else.

          If they want to call me the Queen of Mean because I’m out of money, than so be it. I think its time for people to take responsibility for themselves. Times are tough for everyone today.

          You do take lots of flack for your opinions, Max. I have to say that the more I learn about how governments work, the more I am starting to agree with you.

          AV

      • #3035563

        The poor pay social security, sales, and employment taxes

        by delbertpgh ·

        In reply to The rich pay plenty of taxes

        I agree that everybody, including the poor, ought to pay some income tax. But it isn’t like the poor pay no taxes at all. Between social security and sales, the working poor send at least 10% of their income off to government.

        The working well-off, like me, pay about the same. And, as a home owner, I lose another 6% to property taxes, to keep school, city, and county going.

        • #3035549

          They may only send 10% to the government directly,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to The poor pay social security, sales, and employment taxes

          but the dirty little shell game is that they pay far more of other peoples’ taxes that get passed down to them!

          And we have these “enlightened progressives” who claim that increasing taxes on “the rich” will fix it… it doesn’t. It makes it worse, because it all gets passed down until it gets to someone who can’t pass it down.

          The slumlord doesn’t really care if the city raises his property taxes… he’ll just up the rent!

        • #3035547

          Not in New York City he won’t

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to They may only send 10% to the government directly,

          They have this thing called “rent control,” instituted in an effort to protect the “little people.”

          From that, you can no doubt deduce how slums come to be in the first place.

        • #3035544

          Probably

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Not in New York City he won’t

          from buildings let go because the government wouldn’t allow the owner to recover his costs.

        • #3035535

          Tha winna!

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Probably

          and still champee-een!

    • #3035586

      She is right.

      by dwdino ·

      In reply to The rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. . . . .

      They are paying too much. The top earners carry the biggest load.

      If Hillary really wanted to carry her comments to completion, she would be left with only two options – decrease the tax burdeon the “rich” or increase the tax burden on the “lesser”.

      BTW, let her and her husband lead the way…

      • #3035577

        Oh, no, no, no

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to She is right.

        [i]BTW, let her and her husband lead the way… [/i]

        You can’t do that… They are “The enlightened ones”. They’re smarter than everybody else, and know best how to spend their money… AND yours… 🙂

    • #3035534

      Picking and choosing

      by charliespencer ·

      In reply to The rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. . . . .

      those questions I found interesting or had an opinion on. No responses will be forthcoming, but since you asked:

      I assume all businesses pass the taxes on to their customers, just as they do every other operating cost.

      Capital gains and other forms of investment shouldn’t be taxed. Current tax policies don’t do enough to encourage savings or investment, and too much to discourage it.

      I favor a consumption tax. I would exempt groceries (not restaurant food), medicine, water, electricity, housing, and articles of clothing under $100 (with that figure indexed to the inflation rate).

      I would not favor completely eliminating the income tax. Diversification applies to income as well as investment.

      I don’t have children, so many of these questions don’t affect me directly. I support privatizing the majority of a contributor’s Social Security taxes, or the option to apply a portion of one’s SS payment directly to an individual’s IRA / 401K / other retirement plan. I’ll accept raising SS rates only when Congress stops writing IOUs and using the money for unrelated purposes.

      I’m big on dedicated user fees. Funds for goods and services should be payed by those who use those services. Those services generally perceived to benefit all should be payed for by taxes paid by all – defense, environmental protection, foreign policy, food safety, etc. Services such as national parks, road construction, industry regulation should be paid by those benefiting from them.

      All subsidies should be eliminated. Period. If you can’t make it, get into some other line of work.

      • #3035515

        Mostly agree,

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to Picking and choosing

        except I WOULD tax everything except “business to business for business” transactions (this would include all training and education intended to make an individual more desirable in the job market or to make him more valuable to his current employer)…

        I like the idea of not taxing the first (poverty level) amount of spending. It gives those at that level the liberty of deciding for themselves what they need.

        Not taxing food would give people who buy lobster and caviar a break they don’t need (ironically, both of these items can currently be purchased with food stamps!).

        The more (self proclaimed) “enlightened” among us will argue, but the results of taking more responsibility in the tax department will be more political power during the period between elections, especially for those in the middle… They can choose not to fund the government by only purchasing what they absolutely need.

    • #3035493

      My own answers

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to The rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. . . . .

      [i]Define the rich?[/i]

      This simply cannot be defined; it means different things to different people; at best, it’s relative. And be advised, any time someone criticizes – or demonizes – [i]the rich[/i], be assured, it’s only playing to the class envy emotion. As a retort, however, I might ask these questions as it relates to [i]the rich[/i]: have [i]the poor[/i] ever provided jobs and income for others? Is our goal to make [i]the rich[/i] less rich? Is our goal to punish [i]the rich[/i]?

      [i]At what percentage should corporations be taxed?[/i]

      Zero percent. Corporations NEVER pay taxes. That cost is ALWAYS passed onto the consumer.

      [i]Do you think the cost of corporate taxes are passed onto the consumer, or absorbed by corporate officers, or applied to (deducted from) corporate profits, or something else?[/i]

      See above.

      [i]At what percentage should capital gains be taxed?[/i]

      Zero percent. Savings and investment should be encouraged. If something is taxed, we get less of it. Taxing savings and investment discourages it.

      [i]What percentage of total taxes collected should be paid by:

      – the top 5 percent of wage earners pay?
      – the top 10 percent of wage earners pay?
      – the top 50 percent of wage earners pay?
      – the bottom 50 percent of wage earners pay?[/i]

      This was a loaded question for those who actually believe [i]the rich do not pay their fair share[/i] of taxes. As it is now…..

      ….. the top 5 percent of wage earners pay 61 percent of tax revenue collected. Should they pay more?

      ….. the top 10 percent of wage earners pay 71 percent of tax revenue collected. Should they pay more?

      ….. the top 50 percent of wage earners pay 97 percent of tax revenue collected. Should they pay more?

      ….. the bottom 50 percent of wage earners pay only 3 percent of tax revenue collected. Should they pay less?

      ….. the bottom 47 percent of wage earners pay zero percent of tax revenue collected. How can they pay any less?

      ….. and the bottom ?? percent of wage earners, not only pay zero taxes, but they actually receive income at the expense of others. Should they receive more?

      [i]What is the maximum percentage a person’s income should be subjected to taxation?[/i]

      If – and that’s a conditional if (see below) – a person’s income is taxed at all, the rate should be no more than 30 percent. I might add, no deductions, no B.S.

      [i]Should income be taxed at all? Why or why not?[/i]

      No. Tax consumption, not income.

      [i]Would you favor a consumption tax instead of an income tax?[/i]

      Yes. However, food (but not restaurants), medical, and educational should be exempt from taxation. I believe the following, although not perfect, is a good starting point:

      http://www.fairtax.org

      [i]Would you favor a consumption tax in addition to an income tax?[/i]

      No. Absolutely not. Moreover, as a condition of a consumption tax, I would favor repealing the 16th amendment.

      [i]Should Social Security taxes be increased? If yes, on whom and by how much?[/i]

      No. Those on whom the increase would most likely impact are those who are in the early years of paying them. It would be the epitome of unfairness.

      [i]Should Medicare taxes be increased? If yes, on whom and by how much?[/i]

      No. Those on whom the increase would most likely impact are those who are in the early years of paying them. It would be the epitome of unfairness.

      [i]Should we pass on to future generations (our children and grandchildren) a system (a government) that taxes them more than it taxed us so it can pay for the promises made to us?[/i]

      No. The right and moral thing to do is figure out a way this WON’t happen.

      [i]Would you be willing to pass-on your personal debt to your children and grandchildren?[/i]

      No, of course not.

      [i]Are you willing to pass-on your government debt to your children and grandchildren?[/i]

      No. If we wouldn’t pass on personal debt, how can we possibly justify passing on government debt?

      • #3035492

        Max

        by santeewelding ·

        In reply to My own answers

        Like many here, you futz about the ins and outs of consumption. Screw that.

        You have said nothing — nor has anyone else — about [i]transaction[/i] and how it can/should/might be ordered.

        • #3035490

          Santee

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Max

          You said, [i]”You have said nothing — nor has anyone else — about transaction and how it can/should/might be ordered.[/i]

          Nor have you.

          P.S. Would you dare answer my questions, one by one, as I did?

        • #3035489

          Screw your underling questions

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Santee

          Yes, I have, spoken about sanctity. I don’t expect that, you and others, fixed on relative value — the so-called lesser and greater of us — would have noticed.

        • #3035488

          Okay

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Screw your underling questions

          I can live with that.

          Have a nice evening.

        • #3035487

          I don’t blame you

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Okay

          It’s work.

        • #3035486

          And I don’t blame you

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I don’t blame you

          It’s duplicitous.

        • #3035485

          I leave you go

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to I don’t blame you

          You are not up to it.

        • #3035484

          I leave you go

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I don’t blame you

          nor are you.

        • #3035483

          Pretty fast

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to I don’t blame you

          Dropping your hammer, Max, for someone dismissive of whatever I have to say.

        • #3035482

          Pretty fast

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I don’t blame you

          Dropping your hammer, Santee, for someone dismissive of whatever I have to say.

        • #3035481

          Pretty good

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to I don’t blame you

          At what you do.

          Mine, it takes longer to take hold.

        • #3035479

          Pretty good . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I don’t blame you

          ….. at what I do?

          Okay. I can live with that. Have a nice evening.

      • #3035475

        Hey Max.

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to My own answers

        Social Security and Medicare would be able to be funded from the sales tax collected. A separate tax would be unnecessary, and within a generation or so, Social Security and Medicare will probably be unnecessary as well.

        [i]Should we pass on to future generations (our children and grandchildren) a system (a government) that taxes them more than it taxed us so it can pay for the promises made to us?
        [/i]

        I believe that the number mentioned by the fairtax people (23%) is higher than what is needed to fund programs at current levels. I believe that we would see positive results from this very quickly. So quickly that many will demand the government lower the percentage within three years… but I would be in favor of leaving it where it is until the national debt is paid off. If we instituted it beginning next year, I’d bet that the debt wouldn’t take 20 years to pay off.

        I believe the fairtax would make American made products more competitive in both domestic and foreign markets. It would be a DISincentive to companies leaving, and an incentive for foreign companies to move here and during a recession is the perfect time to implement it. We must move fast though… do it first… because when other countries start seeing their money come here, they’ll either move to stop it, or to emulate it. Not that that would be a bad thing… spreading “America” all over the planet. You see, I have no objection to a single world government… as long as it’s like this one is SUPPOSED to be 🙂

      • #2814444

        I agree with you, Max

        by rfink ·

        In reply to My own answers

        The way I understand the fairtax.org tax is that anything can only be taxed once. Using their 23% rate for example purposes. If I buy a “newly built house” for 200,000 the tax would be $46000. I would buy a used house and save the $46000. Same for automobiles, I would save $4600 on a $20,000 car.

        I see the fair tax ruining home builders and the auto companies. If I’m missing something, please let me know.

        The other issue I have with the fair tax is most of my life I paid income taxes on my savings, investments, etc and now I have to pay a 23% tax to enjoy the fruits of my labor. I getting taxed all over again.

        • #3026290

          Well, probably not all of it.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I agree with you, Max

          [i]If I buy a “newly built house” for 200,000 the tax would be $46000. I would buy a used house and save the $46000.[/i]

          The person who paid that $46,000 is going to try to include as much of it as possible into his asking price when he sells 🙂

        • #3026289

          Go to the FairTax Web site

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I agree with you, Max

          It won’t take long to find the answers to your concerns.

    • #3026190

      Fair? We left that illusion back in grade school

      by jdclyde ·

      In reply to The rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. . . . .

      Is it “fair” that one person pays nothing while another pays over a million?

      Is it “fair” that one person pays $2000 while another pays $500,000?

      Or should it all fall down to percent of income?

      Or should it only be “the rich” that should pay while “the poor” only receive?

      My Aunt recently passed on a petition from MoveOn crying about how Hedge fund managers only pay 15%, and how it wasn’t fair that they pay a lower percent than fire fighters and teachers. (a large portion of their income is collected under capital gains, not income, thus the 15%) Based on the income figures MoveOn provided, the evil managers pay in each year what it would take the teachers over 3000 years to MAKE. Is that “fair”?

      How many leaders in Congress and the Senate have recently had issues for failing to pay THEIR fair share of due taxes? How many of the recent appointed positions were filled by people with the same issues?

      Going into an election cycle, so it is time to start up the class warfare again. Lets all hate “the rich”?

    • #3026170

      claiming S0

      by xnavydk ·

      In reply to The rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. . . . .

      Im not going to read the 100++ posts but I have thought about taxes off and on the last few months because owing sucks. I claim no exemptions and have nothing to reduce my taxable income and paying in Single and zero and still owing is what yanks my short hairs.

      Yes it is still my fault I owe, I should have known what the amount on my current taxable wages was and either paid the additional $$ or reduce my taxable income by investing and other such vehicles at my disposal.

      but I don’t want to complain (too much)because when I had exemptions (3) kids, I paid little and got a return for over 20 years.

      but now I am still flummoxed how the single person, as far as individual tax payers are stuck holding the bag the majority of the people who pay in.

      For example. some folks use the tax system as a savings of some sort why is beyond me.
      loaning the govt your money for a year with no interest is beyond odd. sock what you would have paid in additional taxes in a CD, and if that’s not feasible, contribute that monthly amount to a 401k.

      anyway, as always I am off on a tirade. to answer one of your questions:
      I also think the IRS should be abolished and taxes paid by people on a fair percentage value of consumed products and services (sales tax) and a flat rate tax based on income. There should not be a benefit for how many puppies you have. There has to be taxes, the state and fed have to pay for stuff that’s necessary and fund stupid stuff like welfare for people too stupid or lazy to get a fluxing job.

      A chief of mine used to say, Kids were not issued in your sea bag. Meaning the navy is not responsible for them, YOU are.

      I don’t earn an extra $10 an hour because I have children over a person who doesn’t.

      wow my thoughts are all over the place on this one. ::hits the the post anyway key:: it related to the any key

      • #3028365

        Not really

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to claiming S0

        [i]Im not going to read the 100++ posts but I have thought about taxes off and on the last few months because owing sucks. [/i]

        If anything, you’re better off owing a little as long as you can afford to pay… Just as overpaying is an interest-free loan to the government, underpaying is an interest-free loan to you!

        Perhaps you can even put the difference between “S0” and “M9” in the bank and make a little money off of their money while you’re holding it for them 🙂

        Banks and other businesses do that all the time with YOUR money. Even the one you WORK for (ever wonder why in this day and age they still hold back a pay?)

Viewing 13 reply threads