How would you fix the government?
 

If you could change just one thing about the United States government (Federal, State, Local, etc), what would it be?

Quick and dirty (and not well thought out or supported):

Welfare
I would do away with food stamps. All welfare recipients are given a charge card. On the 1st and 15th of every month, they can go down to the local government warehouse and recieve two weeks worth of food. If they run out, its their problem.

All those seeking unemployment benifits would be enrolled in the Job Corps. If work is needed in Texas and you live in Vermont, the government will provide transportation and housing. If you decline, you will no longer recieve an unemployment check.

Mandatory drug testing.

Taxes
I would implement a modified "Fair Tax" system, though Im still in the beginning stages of noodling that one out.

Gun Control
I would leave the laws as they are now though I would require local law enforcement agencies to provide free gun safety training to any and all who seek it (provided they are legally able to own a firearm).

GI Bill
The current GI bill sucks. I would give all vets 5 years free tuition at the state university of their choice. Colleges/Universities can deny enrollment for the standard reasons but cannot deny it due to prior military service.

Legal system
Losers of lawsuits must pay all of the opposing parties legal fees.

Misc
I would also place a term limit on all committee seats in the house/senate

I would place a spending limit on all campaigns so that campaigning is not limited to the wealthy or those backed by the major political parties

Im sure I will come up with more later, but that should be enough for you guys to start tearing into me.

Oh, and I would legalize marijuana, federally regulate it and tax the shit out of it just like alcohol/tobacco.

you tell us first. that's how TFP works

Bring the Framers back from the dead!

I would love to hear what Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton et al would say about how their "grand experiment" has evolved.

In their own words and not what some of today's constitutional "scholars" think they would say.

Audit government jobs for efficiency. Heard wayyy too many stories of people with 3 hour lunches and 4 hour days. Is this why bureaucracy is so inefficient?

Edit the way legislators write statutes. Many 'laws of the land' lack any sense, and must be parsed out, and even then are ambiguous.

Solve the problem of the two-party system, including putting a limitation on such things as how much can be spent on campaigning and how much can be received for donations.

Transparency and Accountability

The president and every member of Congress should have monthly "people" conferences (interactive webcasts) and answer questions posed directly by the people.

A new publication, Congressional Record for Dummies, a daily newspaper in lay terms of WTF they did yesterday

Every member of Congress should include their vote on every piece of legislation on their website, with a brief explanation behind the reason for their vote

And definetly, the independent audits of every government agency suggested above.

Of the people...BY the people...For the people

6 year term limits for both Representatives and Senators. No more career politicians

I considered that but placing a term limit would also leave us with a relatively unexperienced House and Senate. What if we, instead, enacted a term limit on committees? Wouldnt that help to keep said committee members relatively untouchable by special interest groups/lobbyists?

Strengthen the Bill of Rights and bring the language into modernity so there can be little confusion.

I would like to see a federal gov. that in most circumstances does absolutely nothing.

Re-emphasize states rights and repeal the 17'th Amendment. Our government was intended to be balanced and somewhat immune to the whims of the 'mob.' The 17'th Amendment made Senators directly elected by the people. As a result both the Congress and the Senate represent the people directly and nobody looks out for states rights. Originally Senators were elected by the State legislatures and Congressmen were elected directly by the people of the states...that way there were two opposing half of congress rather than simply mirror images with different rules.

Also repeal the 16'th Amendment and pass an amendment in it's place banning any form of income tax. The government has no business knowing how much money I make, much less taking it out of my pocket directly. The gov. should tax spending rather than the act of wealth creation.

Pass an amendment requiring a balanced budget with a very narrow exception for times of war requiring the commitment of more than 250,000 troops.




I would not limit campaign spending. An effective, successful, and competent leader will be able to raise money and compete in an election. Spending limits will only help those candidates who are not competitive without government intervention and I don't want those people to be put in charge.

I would tax all clubs/organizations/churches the same. To give tax breaks to an organization simply because they are superstitious while taking money from those who eschew superstition is silly.

I would give gigantic tax breaks to any corporation willing to base all operations out of the USA. By making the USA the worlds largest tax haven for corporations, companies would flock back to the states creating jobs and taxable revenue.

I would pass an economic prosperity amendment requiring the United States to Export more goods than it Imports.

burn it down.
yes, all of it.
start over and hope we do a better job the second go around.

Who would be held accountable and what would the punishment be if a balanced budget was not achieved?

...Nobody

You could include a clause in the Amendment putting an emergency budget into place totaling 50% of the prior years budget spent monthly as the President sees fit until a new budget is passed. Additionally, all pay and incentives to the Senate/Congress would cease immediately.

It would sort itself out pretty quick.

I like the way you think. The 17th amendment has been a huge thorn in my side since I realized what it means. The US senators are supposed to represent the individual states and not the people. The whole balance of power between the state and federal government went out the window when this was enacted.

Your other plans are along the right thinking as well.

sigh......you know this would make it WORSE for the poor people, right?

I don't think the government is broken. It changes as it is supposed to. Things change as new people get voted in, or voted out.

It may not be the way that I like things right now, or even a few years ago, but I know that it will not stay like this my lifetime.

No, it would make it worse for the people who do not pull their own weight in society.

Besides, since poor people don't spend very much money (in theory anyways) they wouldn't be paying much in the way of taxes.

Sorry for the lack of sympathy, but I have not yet met a poor person who couldn't have bettered their situation with a good work ethic and some discipline.

god knows, there are thousands of high paying jobs just waiting to be filled by the lazy poor once they pull themselves up by their boot straps :rolleyes:

the poor would pay a smaller $$ amount in taxes per year, but far more in % of income

I would change the official language to Sanskrit.

The masses will heed me because i am wise and mighty. This will be last communication in your language.

Are you familiar with how the fair tax actually works?

Right now a poor person can get money back despite not paying ANY taxes. It's a reward for failure.

Under the fair tax, all spending is taxed, but a rebate is issued for the taxes paid on poverty-level spending. So a person who is living off the basics would pay sales tax up front but would receive a check every month as compensation for taxes paid, thus paying $0 in net taxes.

Of course, everyone gets the same check for the same amount...you should shed a tear at how egalitarian it is. Everyone who spends above what is required for basic sustenance pays the full tax...no tax breaks, no shortcuts, no exceptions, it all gets taxed evenly.

And yes, I do expect the lazy poor to pull themselves up by their boot straps. Nearly all my friends come from very humble backgrounds and they have done just that. Employers pay people what they are worth. If you are making minimum wage it is because you are *nearly* worthless to your employer. If you don't like that then do something to increase your value...get an education, work harder, stop smoking crack, etc.

Not if the taxes on spending included some sort of graduated luxury tax. Then it becomes a choice for those who make the money. If a millionaire chooses to drive a Honda Civic then he avoids the luxury tax but if he wants that Porsche, well then it is time to get out the checkbook. There are ways to balance everything.

Having an inexperienced President every 4 or 8 years doesn't seem to brought the world to a crashing halt, why should having new Representatives and Senators be any different? I am not quite as radical as the poster who suggested the idea though. Five terms for Representatives and 2 terms for Senators sounds good.

I think most of them go with the idea of doing something right for the country but I think after a while all they want is to stay. Maybe if they go knowing they can't stay forever, more of them will be willing to the right things instead of the politically expedient things. It would also force major turn over on a more regular basis. I would love to see the numbers on how of the current members of both houses served during Clinton or Bush I. I am guessing the numbers would amaze much of America.

Changing the guy at one end of PA Ave only goes so far when most of the 535 at the other end stay the same.

how does the country create a budget when it has no idea how much people will spend each year?? doesn't a recession destroy the government? also, where does the government get the billions in prebate money for the fair tax?

You are going to have to explain that.

It looks like you are saying that the 'effective' tax rate decreases on those with higher incomes because they are not actually spending what they make.

But that is silly for a couple reasons. First, according to that chart, someone who is making 58K per year is saving approximately $12,000 per year and not ever spending it. That's a bit ridiculous, and even if it were the case, people save for retirement, etc. and eventually they do spend the money, or their children do.

Second, your chart is basically saying at the extreme that everybody who make a billion dollars a year will only pay 10.5% in taxes. I don't understand how a flat 23% tax becomes 10.5%. No matter how much money is involved, 23% is still 23%. How many people make 12 billion a year anyways?

Third, I don't think even the more radical supporters of the fair tax have suggested poverty level spending in the US is 8,000 Dollars.


Ok, I am done speculating because the more I look at it the more confused I am. At least have the decency to include a legend of some sort so people can figure out what that chart is. An explanation of what it means and how it helps your case would be better.
-----Added 25/1/2009 at 10 : 46 : 20-----
Um, if the recession is so bad that people are significantly reducing their spending, then a responsible gov. will reduce it's spending as well in order to stay within it's means.

The billions in prebate money come from the billions in taxes collected...remember the prebate is basically a refund.

flat tax and fair tax are two different things. this chart shows that a fair tax (ie only taxing spending above the government issued prebate) is actually regressive, as the rich spend a far smaller % of their income on living expenses. Someone making $40k probably spends close to 100% of their yearly income on expenses, meaning they are being taxed on nearly all of their income. The rich are saving a lot of their income and spending a smaller % of it on expenses, and are thus paying taxes at a lower rate (though are being taxed more total dollars)

How does any business do it? No company knows 100% for sure what sales will be for the next year. They have to project. When projections are off they have to compensate mid year. Government is a business and frankly it needs to run more like one. Deficits are fine in case of national emergency but they have become a matter of habit.

You will have to ask the poster who brought up the "prebates" about those.

It is true that someone who is making say 100,000 dollars a year and only spends 50,000 a year will pay a lower percentage in taxes....that year. But when he eventually takes that money out of savings and spends it, BAM! he pays tax. There is no escape.

But what if he invests that money and makes a profit? Then when he tries to spend those profits they also get taxed!


I realized what the 8,000 dollar figure was, and it is misrepresented in that graph. The 8,000 dollars represents the amount of money reimbursed by the government...it is a reimbursement for taxes paid on poverty level spending, which makes spending up to about $25K/year tax free which your chart fails to accurately reflect. That chart makes it look like every dollar over the first 8,000 is taxed which, I think, is deliberately misleading.

Additionally, someone who makes 50,000 per year will, after the prebate, only pay taxes on about half their income, so they will be paying a rate of approximately 12% whereas someone who is making a million a year will pay the full 23%.

again, where do the billions of dollars in prebate money (otherwise known as welfare) come from?

I don't understand. If you pay 500 dollars in taxes, and the government gives you a 50 dollar rebate, the money came from your taxes. It isn't being created out of nowhere, it's a tax refund being given back.

okay, then how does the government afford to give back billions in tax rebates then?

Again, it's a zero sum game and you are inventing a non existent problem.

The government is giving back money that they should not have taken in the first place. They are taxing everybody MORE than they really intend to, and are giving back the excess in the form of a refund check.

It's not a hard concept. If my operating budget is 100 dollars a month and I take in 150 dollars in taxes, the extra 50 dollars should be given back and doing so won't bankrupt the gov.

The tax percentage was set with that rebate in mind. The level of spending OVER what the rebate covers will generate tax revenue comperable to what our current, complicated system rakes in.

The government isn't rebating what they are not taking in, therefore they are not in the red.


I can understand other objections to this tax plan and there is a lot of room for debate, but I honestly don't understand why this is a sticking point. It is a rebate to compensate people for the taxes they would have to pay on poverty level spending simply because a uniform sales tax does not discriminate well.

Sorry for the repetition:

Implement a tax system where the poor and middle class pay the same or lower percentage of their income to support our government as the wealthy.

Um, our current tax system is already that way. The wealthy pay the vast majority, both in terms of percentage and net dollars under the current system (despite popular misconception).

What exactly do you want to be different and how?

I would close Wall Street for good. Money is not wealth. Fictitious assets will, by their very nature, destabilize any economic system. Predatory lending/deceptive lending is the single most unethical business practice in human history. And credit cards. Jesus Christ, credit cards cannot substitute for a living wage. Financial assets coming out of thin air is insane, and yet it's the economic foundation for our economy (at least as long as I've been alive).

I don't know where the idea of "if we each pursue our individual financial benefit that we'll see the benefit for society as a whole" came from, but it's bullshit and the longer our system is based on this 'principle', the deeper into the debt industrial complex we'll fall. The bottom line is that the economy should be built around what's been recently referred to as "Main Street" and Wall Street should be forever destroyed.

I would not close wall street because I feel competition and capitalism promote a healthy economy, but I would support...something to encourage a renewed emphasis on real wealth and away from credit.

I don't know how to fix it but I disagree with your premise. I believe the poor and middle class pay a higher percentage of their incomes to support our government (probably somewhere between 40 to 70 percent) because most of the taxes in the distribution chain are passed down to consumers and they spend most of their income on goods and services.

Um, the rich are also consumers...they just buy more expensive goods and services.

I agree that the total tax burden on...say a can of beans is greater than the sales tax plus what the consumer pays in taxes. However, the rich are paying the same tax, plus luxury taxes, plus higher income taxes. If a rich person just 'saves' his money until his death, most of it goes to sky-high estate taxes.

Belief is a poor word choice as most people 'believe' simply because they want to believe while facts may 'convince' them otherwise if they bothered to pay attention. I am not going to post quotes or statistics as they are so subjective, but google the issue for a bit and you will see that the rich do in fact spend their money, and that they do pay most of the taxes.

The idea that rich people somehow are able to avoid spending their money or paying taxes is absurd...except for what is donated to charity.
-----Added 26/1/2009 at 06 : 16 : 26-----
Back to the original topic...

I would also allow school vouchers equal to the total cost of attendance at a public school, good for any school parents choose to send their children to. I would not only cut a check directly to whatever school a child attends, but deny the public school system that revenue if the child attends a private school system...encouraging competition and making quality education available to every family with the motivation to pursue it.

I would also hold teachers at public schools to the same standards as teachers at private schools. Pay will be performance based rather than on number of years as a teacher. I would also encourage successful, retiring businessmen and women to teach...who better to give children the tools for success than those who are actually successful in life?


Sustainable energy: I would create a nationwide drive towards non depletable nuclear power. It is clean, safe, sustainable, and for all intents and purposes unlimited. I would re-allow nuclear reprocessing and attempt to make America entirely nuclear powered within 12 years (time picked at random, insert whatever is actually attainable). This would go far towards reducing our foreign energy dependence. Meanwhile I would drill domestic oil reserves to keep that money from going to the middle east and plow a portion of those profits towards sustainable alternatives so we will have options when those reserves run dry.

Additionally, I would cease all ethanol subsidies...it simply isn't possible to produce ethanol from corn efficiently.

Slims, I have googled the issue and it is very difficult to get a definite number on what percent of the cost of goods and services is there because of embedded or hidden taxes included in the consumer's final prices. The Fair Taxers come up with something like 40% and I have seen estimates as high as 90%. The more of your income you spend on goods and services the higher percentage of your income you pay to support our government. Those who make more than they spend only pay income taxes on the additional amount.

one of the drawbacks I've heard for nuclear power is cost of building reactors and time to build reactors. Not sure 12 years is realistic on either front

I agree it is difficult to pin an exact number embedded taxes.

My point is that NOBODY ultimately makes more than they spend.

You could start saving for retirement today, but in thirty years, that money is going to be spent, and taxed, just like every other dollar. If you die before you spend it, then the vast majority of your 'fortune' goes to estate taxes.

Oh, and people pay INCOME taxes on what they make, not what they spend. Thus, rich people are paying income taxes across the board regardless of whether they save that money or not. Even if you consider IRA's and other schemes to defer taxes, they have very low annual contribution limits and the money is taxed eventually.
-----Added 26/1/2009 at 06 : 28 : 11-----
Derwood, I agree that 12 years is a very short timeline. I didn't want to bother trying to figure out the right answer.

I also agree that the cost is very high to build a reactor. However, reactors have a very long lifetime, the fuel cost is rock bottom low (per megawatt/hr), and all that money stays in the national economy rather than going to foreign governments as it is with oil.

Allowing reprocessing would also have the added benefit of further reducing not only fuel but waste storage costs (a substantial part of a plants overall operating budget and the single biggest liability). Reprocessing spent fuel allows the plant to start with material that is already partially enriched and run the same fuel back through the reactor over and over again. It would significantly reduce the quantity and volatility of radioactive waste produced.

It's not absurd at all, it's reality. Our tax code absolutely, positively is designed to favor the wealthy. Give this a read:
The Philosopher's Stone: How the Rich (Don't) Pay Taxes
I do, by leaps and bounds. My current income after taxes is about $86,000 a year. Right now I spend maybe, MAYBE $40,000. The rest goes into material investments. I have an original copy of the New York Herald from the day Lincoln was assassinated. Even if there's a rather serious economic collapse, after a recovery that piece will still be worth a great deal. Or if there's no recovery, I can leave the US and still sell it for quite a bit. And that's hardly the only thing I've purchased. I also have quite a bit in my savings (though I'm considering liquidating it and investing most of it elsewhere).

If things keep going the way they've been going for me, I'll be able to leave a substantial sum in my inheritance. That's wealth.

great read, Willravel, thanks

if you think about the volume of retail activity, it's obvious that the wealthy are not central players in the game. 30 years of neoliberal nonsense to the contrary has proven to be false.

but the underlying problem really--what enabled this goofball experiment in skewing the tax code, and much else, toward the wealthy---was the neoliberal "understanding" of the state. you know the drill, there's no need to repeat it. one effect of this was that it was ideologically impossible for the neoliberals to devise coherent patterns of action for the state beyond maintaining the patronage system that was built after world war 2 around what we laughingly call the "national security state."

so one improvement is coherent goals for state action: benchmarking, transparency in the doing: the capacity to make adjustments requires that they be made relative to something, some objective or objectives. this is a far more efficient use of the state than was treating it as an irrationality engine except when it came to funnelling vast sums of cash into high-tech military toys.

dismantle the national security state. this is not to say abandon military procurements etc---but take the state off a cold war footing. the right likes to talk about how the reagan period saw the end of the cold war--the myriad problems with the delusion that reagan policies "won" it aside, it's obvious that the situation changed across the early 1990s. it's time to adjust. that would free up far more money for other, more rational tasks. one thing that's been obvious since the vietnam period is that vertically organized militaries which rely on a radical extension of the doctrine of total war and which orient their procurement around these assumptions is entirely dysfunctional.
this means a loss of power for one of the central constituencies that supports the right--so be it.

the educational system is a wreck, but not because of teacher's unions and tenure--it is a wreck because control of it is tied to localities, which makes it an exact mirror of the american class system in terms of resources and impossible to treat as a system, and so impossible to reorient coherently. funding should originate with states, and should be flat across localities. create systems of magnet schools to use in a positive sense the specialities of particular faculties. gear the overall policy that shapes how education is done around realistic--and adaptable--profiles of the labor pool, which is what the system reproduces. at the level of content, i would prefer to see that conservative mythologies of history be eliminated entirely and critical thinking emphasized in the cirriculum--but that's perhaps a long-term objective, something that would be enabled by the reorienting of the system as a whole and the creation of something approaching the meritocracy that folk like to pretend we already have, when the fact is we have nothing like that. at all.

i shall now bow to guyy's wisdom and mightiness and communicate to myself in what i imagine sanskrit to be.

Where do these figures come from?

And for the record I make more then I spend. I guess you could say "ultimately" I won't because I'll be dead. Plus there's the chance I'll need long term care, hopefully 40-50 years from now and that care would eat up all my earnings. But since I was in my late 20's I've earned more then I've spent.

"Vast majority" I think not.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0414/csmimg/p3a.gif

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0414/csmimg/p3b.gif


The US tax system is not really progressive, so um, no, "our current tax system" is not "already that way". The tax rate tops out at 35%, which means a person making a pretty comfortable living but is not exactly rich pays the same nominal rate as John Thain Bill Gates. But wait! Thanks to the miracle of tax breaks, the effective tax rate on the wealthy is actually lower than that 35%. On top of that, much wealth is not taxed because it's owners are supposedly in the Cayman Islands or because it's hidden away in Swiss or Bahamian bank accounts. The GAO guesses that the effective tax rate on this "foreign" income is 5%.

The report is here:

GAO report on "foreign source" income & effective tax rates


Anyway, i reject the whole premise of this thread. US corporations dumped 75,000 jobs today and people want to institute drug testing? And you arm chair libertarians are going to rewrite the constitution. Goody! That will solve all our problems.

Will: I understand that capital gains taxes at a lower rate than the highest income tax brackets. A fair tax would fix that by taxing spending rather than earned income.

also, you are saving your money now, but that won't continue forever...eventually you will want to retire, or you will die and your money will be taxed, again. I appreciate your decision to invest in material goods, but under the fair tax that newspaper would be taxed both when you purchased it and when you sell it, so you would not be able to escape paying taxes on it.

Roachboy, I agree in part that school systems are a wreck because they are locally controlled. However, I strongly differ with regard to the cause. The nationwide per-student cost of education is about 9,000 per student. Washington DC spends about 13,500 dollars per student but is one of the worst performing districts in the country. The problem is incompetent, unsuccessful, lazy teachers teaching poorly to students who have no interest in learning. Most school districts are able to do more with less because they have students who are more interested in learning and are more likely to have quality teachers.

I fully support re-orienting the educational system towards being more of a meritocracy...rewarding both good students and good teachers. If you do don't go to class, don't study, don't pay attention, and are generally a drain on resources you should be treated as such. If you try to make the most out of every opportunity and are able to benefit from more advanced classes/better teachers, they should be available to you.
-----Added 26/1/2009 at 07 : 48 : 08-----
Guyy, I read today that it is estimated that less than 1% of wealthy tax payers have managed to escape paying taxes in the USA. I don't have the link off the top of my head.

Also, you are correct that the tax system under Bush became less progressive, but it is still progressive...the wealthy do pay more taxes, and they don't get refunds like the rest of us. The tax loopholes are largely a myth.

From: Congressional Budget Office - Effective Federal Tax Rates Under Current Law, 2001 to 2014

The top 1% pay 22.7% of taxes.
The top 10% pay 50% of taxes.
The top 20% pay 65.3% of taxes.
The top 40% pay 84.3% of taxes.

and..

The bottom 20% pay 1.1% of taxes.

So despite all tax breaks, shenanigans, cayman accounts, etc. The top 10% of wage earners pay 50% of ALL taxes in this country while the bottom 20% pay about 1%. That's pretty friggin progressive.


The idea that the rich should pay more simply because they are rich is tantamount to theft. Everybody should contribute equally according to their consumption...if you buy more you pay more, but without regard to how much money you make.

Not necessarily, and I'll tell you why after this:
As I said before, if things continue the way they've been going—decent work, substantial wages, living below my means—I'm going to have a really substantial sum eventually. I'm going to have enough so that I can retire and still leave a lot in my will. For the record, I wasn't disagreeing with the taxes. I want to pay taxes. The "death tax" should be put back in it's pre-2003 place and they should put a moat around it with alligators in it. I was simply saying that the theory that money will always be cycled back eventually, one way or the other, isn't necessarily correct. My uncle (father's oldest brother) has money from my grandfather that came to him from his father before that. And when my uncle passes away, I will be the recipient of the money, which I'll pass on to my progeny. Sure, taxes have chipped away at it a bit and money has been added on to it, but essentially it's still there, intact, nearly 100 years later, and considering I'm only 25 and have a life expectancy of about 85 it will be intact for quite a while longer. That money is cut off and can only be accessed a bit when it passes from one individual to another.

WillHaver?

WillLeaver?

/threadjack

i don't see any substantive objection to people who benefit from the functioning of the social system disproportionately pay more than others to maintain that system. it serves a greater objective of system maintenance. there is no pseudo-ethical argument against it. you might not like the idea that there is a social world, you might prefer to think that the social is just a collection of arbitrary, disconnected individuals who come full blown from the head of zeus, but that's fairy tale stuff.

the usual response involves one or another version of different fairy tales, the ones written over and over by horatio alger and other social darwinists in the middle of the 19th century.

this is probably the area where libertarians and other folk part company, over this disagreement over premises.

What??

It is patronizing in the extreme when you insinuate my opinions stem from some form of fairy tale world. You might not agree with them, but I have arrived at them through my life experiences and I am a very grounded individual. I am not wide-read enough apparently because I don't believe I have read any of the stories you are referencing.

And yes, there is a 'pseudo-ethical' argument against a progressive income tax. To tell someone who is laboring more efficiently or working double shifts that he should pay more than those who choose not to is unethical. It penalizes hard work and the entrepreneurial spirit.

I have met with limited success so far in my career. I have passed many of my peers while some have surpassed my station in life. However, I have acquired my humble belongings, wealth, and position in life quite literally through my own blood, sweat and tears. I have worked harder, taken more risks, pushed through pain and left others behind me who simply lacked the willpower to carry on. To then suggest that due to my sacrifice and dedication I have earned the privilege of paying not only more money in taxes, but a higher percentage of my income is frustrating at the least. If you would like me to explain myself better I will be happy to discuss it with you over PM.

I don't personally believe in progressive taxation, nor do I believe in sin-taxes, etc. because I feel they are usually the result of the majority ganging up on a smaller group. That, or the tax is an attempt to generate more revenue in a way that won't be visible to most people. I feel everybody should contribute a certain percentage of their income/spending/etc. There are dozens of ways to do it, but at heart I want to get rid of sliding scales, exceptions, loopholes, and targeted taxes. If you really believe our current system allows the rich to pay less in taxes than the middle class then you should support a flat tax or something similar as a better alternative, even if it is not the progressive ideal you would prefer.

You wouldn't want the people from Vermont mixing with the people from Texas. There might be some issues there...

But it does sound like a good idea if the new Job Corp job was within 100 miles of you. Or at a place where you would volunteer to move to.

Or were you thinking that it would only be for temporary jobs, and not permanent relocation for long-term work. Something like a two to twelve month construction job?

Slims, can you deny that those who are paying more taxes are also reaping more benefits?

Yes, that's about what it is. But let's give that some context.

Total Net Worth:
The top 1% controls 33.4%
The next 19% controls 51%
The bottom 80% controls 15.5%
... and that was back in 2001, so you know that the numbers are even more unequal in 2009.

If you control a third of the wealth but pay less than a quarter of the taxes, it seems you're getting a hell of a deal.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Progressive tax exists in a system where most of the wealth lies at the top.

Tax analysis like the above do not take into consideration the amount of taxes that are levied on those who have the ability to pass them on to others (who in effect actually wind up paying them indirectly). This is the basis for my earlier estimate that the poor and middle class probably pay 40% to 70% of their income to support our government.

slims---i tried to be clear that i was talking about the *premises* of the argument you are making, which you seem to be using but which are not particular to yourself in that they're the starting point for conservative libertarian ideology and it's derivative in neoliberalism. the assumption that you can abstract an individual entirely from the social. a socio-economic actor from the contexts not only in which they play but also from those which enable there to be a game at all is nonsense. it involves a philosophical claim that cannot be justified.

the logic you outline moves in a straight line from these premises, so the choices are either take on the internal workings of your argument as if the premise made sense, or bring up the premise and go after it.

for example, the reason i referred to the arguments against progressive taxation as "pseudo-ethical" is that they presuppose the premise--that you can treat individuals in isolation and not with reference to the contexts that enable them. for your position, taxation is understood with reference to abstract individual 1 from income bracket x juxtaposed against abstract indivdual 2 from income bracket y. from there, the question becomes one of equity and/or limits. in itself that's an ethical type of argument--and from your wording, it seems that's how you view it.

my counter argument departs from quite different premises and leads to a different fundamental relation---that higher rates correspond to a criterion of system maintenance and it's correlate in the argument that those who benefit disproportionately from the organization of the existing socio-economic order owe more to the maintenance of that system that do those who benefit less from that order.

the reason i wanted to cut off the horatio alger move is not only that it's tiresome, not only that it's social darwinism in pop form, but also that attributing being in a position to benefit from the overall organization of the socio-economic order need not involve "virtue" at all--class position can account for it quite apart from any inward qualities for example---but more importantly because the entire idea behind such social-darwinist fables is an apology for any and every social organization that works by translating social arrangements into the language of morality or ethics.

to take a perverse example, if you wanted to play the horatio alger game with stalinism, you could say that beria--head of the secret police (the nkvd, which later became the kgb) was able to accumulate such wealth and power as he had as a function of his superior virtue, his gumption and drive and all that. if you know anything about beria, you can work out pretty clearly the myriad ways in which this claim is perverse. and that's the problem.

my impatience with it has much to do with stuff i do in 3-d, so my apologies if i play a little rough.

Will: That is a misleading stat. Our tax system is not based on total accumulated wealth, but on spending and income. The total income of the top 1% is a much lower percentage than what you have quoted for total wealth.


I understand that you view society very holistically and are not an individualist. That I am an individualist does not make me immoral. I do understand that some people acquire wealth/status (like Beria) via tyranny and opression. However, I believe it is the rare exception in a capitalist society and that his circumstances in no way undermine my right to contribute no more of my wealth than the next guy.
-----Added 27/1/2009 at 06 : 00 : 32-----
I fear you are willing to extinguish individual greatness in order for everybody to be mediocre together.

Slims, I don't think you ever answered my question

Sorry, must have missed it.


Ok, here's my take on it. I don't believe those who are paying more taxes are reaping more benefits from the Government. They may get a bit more social security, etc. But that's in proportion to what was contributed anyways.

Rich people may use more resources though I don't know what those would be as regular people tend to rely more on government services, welfare, medicaid, subsidies, HUD housing, public hospitals, unemployment, public defenders, jails, etc.

Even if rich people contributed the same percentage of their total income as those in the middle class, they would still be contributing more total dollars and would be using less gov. services.


I will concede those who are paying more taxes are typically consuming more and reaping more benefits, just not government benefits.

I would say that a rich person is generally going to live in a rich neighborhood, and as such, is paying more property taxes. These property taxes are "buying" them better schools, hospitals, roads, public green space, fire departments, police departments, and countless other government services than someone living in a poor neighborhood.

But didn't you just say above that:
That would mean that comparing wealth and taxes on income and spending would (at least eventually) be perfectly in line.
I'm not suggesting that you're amoral, simply that the belief that "if we each pursue our individual financial benefit that we'll see the benefit for society as a whole" is fundamentally flawed and is, whether intentionally or not, leading to unnecessary and damaging inequality. Assuming there is at any given time a finite amount of wealth available in the world, anyone attaining wealth at a greater factor than wealth is developing is taking from someone else. And this happens all the time. Look at the bailout. Most of the corporations that have received bailouts are still laying off workers, or in some way reducing business while still paying the exorbitant salaries to their upper management. I believe that to be a perfect characterization of capitalism.

The total income for the US is about $9 trillion. Assuming that people under 20 and over 65 make up about 3/8 of the population, that means about 187.5 million adults that should be working. That means that the average income should be around $48,000. What about CEOs and hedge fund managers? John Paulson, a hedge fund manager, made $3.4 BILLION last year. That means he made $1 for of every $2,647 that the entire US earned. How many hard working people had to make well under the average in order to compensate for that income in the overall distribution of that $9 trillion?
Individual greatness in a competitive system comes at an incredible cost. For every Bill Gates there are hundreds of thousands of people living in the lower class. It wouldn't make Bill Gates mediocre to have a bit less money, but it sure would improve the living conditions of those lower class people.

slims---the thread is busy--and it may be that i responded to an argument that really was directed at will--i saw the beria reference and assumed it started one way then went another. so much for the next sentence, in a way. bashing onward regardless:

i think you're mixing things up a bit.

i'll start with the topic we're discussing--how one sees taxes. at that level, the relation is of people to the social form they're part of. that's pretty straightforward--and it holds in general (within the context of the capitalist system)--and it's a general argument, in that we're not talking about rationalities (a shorthand for patterns of thinking and acting that make up the various logics, if you like, that we perform as a function of our backgrounds, class positions, trajectories etc.).

my argument concerning ethics/morality was directed at the way you were arguing, not at you as a person--i don't know anything about you, really, beyond the sentences you write and impressions that i form, which may or may not be right, about the viewpoint you write from. i spend alot of time playing around with the distance that separates sentences about my experience from that experience, so i assume it's there across the board. so i made no claim about whether you are or are not an ethical person yourself. nor would i, without actually knowing you in 3-d.

the argument about beria was just turning the ethics-based way of talking about general relations of people to the social form they're part of back onto you--i think it was pretty clear--to address it, you had to back out of the register you were arguing in and make a second-order claim about capitalism being preferable to stalinism. that's beside the point--the real claim is that these social darwinist arguments dressed up as moral arguments which claim that those who accumuate more advantages do so because they possess greater virtue is basically an affirmation in moral language of *any* social order. so you could say the same thing about beria. i expect that folk who benefitted from stalinism--particularly those who benefitted from it in a way that enabled them to avoid seeing or thinking about what stalin actually did--would have been inclined to think more or less in those terms about it.

as for what i think about what possibilities folk have to do things, to devote their attention to what they love, to make things that expand their capabilities--that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. we could talk about it if you like, but it'd involve a shift in register--it's possible to get from where we started to it---but it is definitely a change of direction.

all i'll say about it is that the class system capitalism relies on squanders unbelievable amounts of human potential because it pushes folk through ways of thinking about the world, about themselves and what they can do that are far more about assuring that most folk stay in the socio-economic place assigned them from the outset that they are about enabling folk to explore much of what they might otherwise be able to do.

another way: if your argument concerning the linkages between thinking in holistic terms about the social world and what individuals can do held, i wouldn't be anything like i am in 3-d. neither would most of the people i know.

Will:

I am too tired to compose a decent response right now to your post as a whole, but I will touch on the numbers thingy real quick.

I don't believe I have been self contradictory WRT taxes, wealth accumulation, etc.

I am convinced the tax man will eventually catch up even to those with large bank accounts. I will also state that the wealthy are more likely to save. However, I don't see how a direct comparison to wealth accumulation and taxes can be made. Here's why: Two people making the exact same amount of money can have very different bank accounts due to differences in how much they save. That one person may blow all their money while another saves it in a bank account and accumulates that wealth for years before spending it. The second person has a much greater net worth, on average, than the first peroson despite identical incomes and, ultimately, identical net expenditures. Your statistic is dependent on HOW people save, not simply that they earn lots of money.

I still don't understand why taxing what people earn is "unconstitutional" and "unfair" and "big bad government", but taxing what people spend is just hunky dory and in no way a violation of anyone's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness

Roachboy, yeah, I was writing the first part of that post to Will and the second to you, just forgot to parse it correctly.

If I have couched my argument in the terms you describe (the rich are virtuous, that capitalism is preferable to Stalinism, etc.) then I have done so accidentally. I have attempted to avoid interjecting unsupportable absolutes and while I have suggested that MY limited success was purely a product of willpower and determination, I have made no claims about virtue. I am quite willing to express a preference for Capitalism over Stalinism, though the only claim I have made so far is that such tyrants are rare in a capitalist society, especially in comparison to the number of people who compete fairly and successfully.

I have arrived at my current world view in large part through paying my own way through college while people all around me complained about how unfair the system was because they could only get grants for half their tuition, etc. Following school I enlisted in the military, which, despite popular misconception is anything but a meritocracy and I learned the hard way how large socialist-like systems actually operate. Through sheer stubbornness I have worked my way into a unit that is the closest thing to a meritocracy I have yet seen. I made SSG with less than 3 years time in service and when I am not deployed I spend most of my time at various schools acquiring the professional skills I will need for continued success. During my (relatively short) time in the military I have seen countless people complain and complain about their station in life while doing absolutely nothing to get promoted or get a better job. I have no respect for that level of complacency and I do not feel we as a society should reward such behavior...regardless of virtue, I don't think it is healthy for society as a whole to hold up the mediocre as an ideal standard.
-----Added 27/1/2009 at 08 : 04 : 25-----





We are playing tag. I don't think taxing what people earn is unconstitutional, I just think it is undesirable and lends itself easily to unfair and complicated tax-schemes.

It is estimated that anywhere between 14-20% of the total amount of tax revenue is spent on attempting to comply with our current tax code. That's ridiculous. Our tax system should be simple enough that changes are transparent...I support a sales tax because it is the simplest option I can think of.

I would argue that 99.9% of people who complain about their life aren't being rewarded for it

True, but they are not bettering themselves either and would tax those who do.

but as stated earlier, we don't live in a system that allows EVERYONE to better themselves financially. income/wealth isn't infinite. and the world needs ditch diggers, as the saying goes

I would want a graduated income tax. I would want to effectively get rid of these "tax brackets" that are such a hindrance to our economic welfare. Additionally, those living below the poverty line would pay no income tax.

I feel that I can say a little with regards to education. roachboy made some excellent points about funding and the manifestation of schooling based on the socioeconomic status of localities, but my main concern is the standards being set by the states. My old high school was severely underfunded and had to take out a loan of $5,000 from the state department just for paper.

Schools place far too much emphasis on passing a standardized test that sets standards far too low. Today's youth is not any less intelligent than the youth of decades past; today's youth is only less motivated. I know of several high-school dropouts that are fairly intelligent - they just couldn't muster the willpower to sit through more classes, let alone put in the work outside of class to get a decent grade. Another problem is the tendency for a public education to be simply years of regurgitating facts and figures - students do not know how to think critically, as roachboy also mentioned. In math classes, perhaps less time could be spent on covering additional material, and rather more time could be left to introducing the students to basic proofs, from algebra to calculus. Math in particular is a lot more exciting when you learn WHY it works, not just that it works. English and social studies classes need to spend more time exchanging and discussing ideas than simply reading through "Frankenstein" for the fourth time since the sixth grade.