tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post9160500330991735696..comments2024-03-28T10:08:06.291-05:00Comments on Give2Attain: As Efficiently and Effectively as PossibleJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-68584345935740272832016-01-06T17:45:58.100-06:002016-01-06T17:45:58.100-06:00The classic liberal conceit is embodied in the hom...The classic liberal conceit is embodied in the home-grown Minnesota Democrat line "Happy to pay for a Better Minnesota." They seem to think that people will happily pay more in taxes anytime they're raised, rather than actively working to avoid them. They think they can repeal the laws of human nature. jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-71977326877941897152016-01-06T17:43:40.221-06:002016-01-06T17:43:40.221-06:00Ok. Time for my favorite video. Based on my examp...Ok. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFeAFDh6dzk" rel="nofollow">Time for my favorite video.</a> Based on my example, they really are lined up for Obama Bucks...Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-29607195376204415082016-01-06T17:40:13.736-06:002016-01-06T17:40:13.736-06:00I guess that this means that one role of governmen...I guess that this means that one role of government in their view is to take money from those who have added more value and redistribute it back to those who have added less value.<br /><br />Seems about correct from the Liberals I dialogue with.<br /><br />An example I guess would be that: Obama worked hard to get himself out of poverty and to become very successful by working harder and offering value to others. Therefore we should charge him large taxes so that people who do not follow his example can receive money, benefits, services, etc at his expense.<br /><br />Does this seem like a good policy for encouraging American citizens to work hard, learn, improve, save, invest, etc?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-65989031320840869462016-01-06T17:32:30.132-06:002016-01-06T17:32:30.132-06:00Did you ever notice when rich liberals have a choi...Did you ever notice when rich liberals have a choice about paying taxes, they don't? Again, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, while claiming to favor higher taxes on the rich, took the bulk of their combined fortunes and donated to a charitable foundation where THEY decide where the money goes. John Kerry puts his boat in Rhode Island to avoid the extra tax in Massachusetts, and does NOT pay the optional (yes, that's correct) higher income tax rate there. <br /><br />Not even liberals believe that government spends wisely and well, but they're OK with it so long as it is Other People's Money. (OPM is addictive, you know.)jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-63328609237298980422016-01-06T17:30:46.858-06:002016-01-06T17:30:46.858-06:00Jerry,
I think Hiram's point based on his past...Jerry,<br />I think Hiram's point based on his past comments is that all American wealth belongs to our society. The concept of Private vs Public wealth has caused us many disagreements over the years.<br /><br />So if I come up with that "better mouse trap" that people value and are willing to pay me for to benefit themselves... Or if I work harder than others, save, invest and people freely give me more money because they value my efforts, capabilities or capital. This leads to an unequal distribution of "society's wealth" and folks like Hiram see this as a system that "arbitrarily takes money from unsuccessful citizens and gives it to successful citizens..."<br /><br />Where in reality there is nothing arbitrary about it... It is just Capitalism at work. People complain about Walmart as they shop there to save themselves money. People complain about jobs being moved over seas while they buy their products from overseas suppliers to save themselves money or to get what they perceive as a better value for themselves.<br /><br />It seems pretty simple to me. Wealth naturally moves from those who offer less perceived value to those who offer more perceived value. (ie unsuccessful to successful)Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-28425733818320537952016-01-06T17:12:34.744-06:002016-01-06T17:12:34.744-06:00Now to answer your question... What would Person A...Now to answer your question... What would Person A have done with that $350K if government had not taken it?<br /><br />The answer is that they would have invested or spent it. Of course spending goes directly into the economy and pays salaries of many other citizens. Investing it would provide capital that is used by companies to expand and improve.<br /><br />My point is that government taking money out of the Private economy so they can just spend it in different areas does have good and bad consequences. If one thinks the government can spend one's money more wisely then maybe we should all pay more taxes.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-29673185296835937932016-01-06T17:06:26.281-06:002016-01-06T17:06:26.281-06:00I thought we were talking about fairness? The que...I thought we were talking about fairness? The question isn't who has what, but what burden government places on them. From the view of government burden, somebody paying $0 in taxes is better off than someone paying $350,000 in taxes. Infinitely better off. <br /><br />And since the Bush tax cuts created this situation, it is pretty hard to argue that government is taking 0$ from the poor and somehow "rewarding" the rich with it. jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-90838730746203451672016-01-06T17:02:50.840-06:002016-01-06T17:02:50.840-06:00The other way to look at it is that.
Person A is ...The other way to look at it is that.<br /><br />Person A is paying $350,000 per year for our schools, roads, bridges, law enforcement, defense, welfare system, etc.<br /><br />Person B may pay $2,000 in taxes and fees for these things, however they receive that or more back in credits, welfare, medicaid, etc.<br /><br />Both live in America and have access to free K-12 education, secure neighborhoods, transportation, etc. Now which one is paying their fair share?<br /><br />It is one of my favorite questions since fair is such a flexible word.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-20712379748888864902016-01-06T15:12:54.759-06:002016-01-06T15:12:54.759-06:00Person A is taxed on their $1M income at 35%.
Pers...Person A is taxed on their $1M income at 35%.<br />Person B is taxed on their $11,770 poverty level income at 0%.<br /><br />Tell me, is it easier to survive on $650K or $11,770?<br /><br />It takes a lot of nerve to suggest that Person A is suffering any sort of inconvenience or is being held down by the heavy hand of government.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-22674496597354177452016-01-06T09:25:56.646-06:002016-01-06T09:25:56.646-06:00Here is an interesting question: if our poverty pr...Here is an interesting question: if our poverty programs are "lifting people out of poverty" at such successful rates, why doesn't the number of people in poverty seem to go DOWN? Isn't the correct measure of welfare programs the number of people who no longer need it?<br /><br />The other puzzlement here is why we insist on adding in all of the welfare benefits before declaring people out of poverty? After receiving all of those benefits, they are STILL in poverty, because they did not make that on their own and will need another big check next month and forever. Heck, if government spent much more they could claim poverty had been eliminated when all that would achieve is to thoroughly cover it up by throwing money – money taken from the successful – at the problem.jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-33413828395483961912016-01-06T09:16:06.586-06:002016-01-06T09:16:06.586-06:00Hiram, that is just plain wrong. People at the bo...Hiram, that is just plain wrong. People at the bottom of the income ladder got a 100% tax cut, while people at the top got only a few percent, yet ended up paying a higher total share of the taxes.<br /><br />And the notion that capitalism is "government taking money from unsuccessful citizens and giving it to successful citizens" simply turns the definition on its head. Capitalism works best, whether for good or ill, when government isn't involved at all. And it would work rather poorly trying to take money from the poor since they have none.jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-90432460441653060872016-01-06T08:36:07.216-06:002016-01-06T08:36:07.216-06:00What exactly is this government policy that "...<br />What exactly is this government policy that "arbitrarily takes money from unsuccessful citizens and gives it to successful citizens..."? <br /><br />That was the effect of the Bush tax cuts.<br /><br />--HiramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-72928603236611775422016-01-06T08:26:18.268-06:002016-01-06T08:26:18.268-06:00Capitalism.Capitalism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-35151416731228246912016-01-06T08:13:46.782-06:002016-01-06T08:13:46.782-06:00Hiram,
What exactly is this government policy tha...Hiram,<br /><br />What exactly is this government policy that "arbitrarily takes money from unsuccessful citizens and gives it to successful citizens..."? Please expand on your thought.<br />Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-61923402499069571462016-01-06T06:32:37.471-06:002016-01-06T06:32:37.471-06:00According to this we could eliminate poverty total... According to this we could eliminate poverty totally by just arbitrarily taking money from successful citizens and giving it to unsuccessful citizens...<br /><br />Our policy of doing the reverse hasn't seem to help...<br /><br />--HiramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-88791837967993830432016-01-06T00:22:42.453-06:002016-01-06T00:22:42.453-06:00Man... According to this we could eliminate povert...Man... According to this we could eliminate poverty totally by just arbitrarily taking money from successful citizens and giving it to unsuccessful citizens...<br /><br />"The safety net was nearly ten times more effective at reducing poverty in 2014 as in 1967, new data show. That is, safety net programs reduced the number of otherwise-poor people by 42 percent in 2014. In sharp contrast, safety net programs cut the number of otherwise-poor people by just a little more than 4 percent in 1967, the first year for which this data is available."<br /><br />This has got to be one of the stupidest articles I have ever read!!!<br /><br />Now the question is did this enable more people to become responsible hard working and/or self sufficient? Or did it promote more people to become irresponsible lazy and/or dependent. <a href="http://www.stateofourunions.org/2009/si-fragile_families.php" rel="nofollow">Food for Thought</a>Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-19810668841689562582016-01-05T17:07:08.610-06:002016-01-05T17:07:08.610-06:00I think that we should maintain the safety net (an...I think that we should maintain the safety net (and being a solid liberal I woud not be opposed to expanding it as research shows it is quite effective in reducing poverty)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cbpp.org/blog/safety-nets-anti-poverty-effectiveness-has-grown-nearly-ten-fold-since-1967" rel="nofollow">Safety Net’s Anti-Poverty Effectiveness Has Grown Nearly Ten-Fold Since 1967</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09905073449150541750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-24447336689389406972016-01-05T15:34:21.759-06:002016-01-05T15:34:21.759-06:00One thing that always fascinates and angers me is ...One thing that always fascinates and angers me is why so many Democrats oppose a federal balanced budget amendment. It sure seems like common sense. <br /><br />Think of it in household economy terms. Would a householder want to limit each year's spending by the amount he earns? Or would he instead want to do things like buy a house?<br /><br />If we don't expect families to balance their budgets, why should we expect governments to balance their budgets?<br /><br />--HiramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-44633269571662747552016-01-05T15:27:36.347-06:002016-01-05T15:27:36.347-06:00"The Liberals already have cut or taxed the b..."The Liberals already have cut or taxed the benefits for people with money."<br /><br />Taxation of SS benefits was signed into law by Reagan, just FYI.Seanhttp://brickcityblog.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-45519220617557521422016-01-05T14:18:18.777-06:002016-01-05T14:18:18.777-06:00One thing that always fascinates and angers me is ...One thing that always fascinates and angers me is why so many Democrats oppose a federal balanced budget amendment. It sure seems like common sense. jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-63363897611330197532016-01-05T14:07:44.044-06:002016-01-05T14:07:44.044-06:00John, that's a meat-axe approach. These thing...John, that's a meat-axe approach. These things can be done sensibly, and should have been done years ago but that's no excuse to keep kicking this rusty old can down the road further. The problem with cries to "preserve Social Security" or "protect Medicare" are pure fantasies because these programs MUST change or collapse.<br /><br />So, what can we do:<br />-- begin a transition to SS private accounts. Mandate contributions and allow only "safe" investments if you must. (the first is probably a must)<br />-- Repeal Obamacare AND Medicaid, and transition to a private insurance "marketplace" with federal premium support. When costs come down, as they will, phase out the premium support. <br />-- slowly transition Medicare to a combination of premium support for those retired and HSA contributions for younger workers. <br />-- Replace ALL means-tested welfare systems in exchange for a graduated negative income tax, requiring only that a "social worker" sign off that people are making appropriate efforts to support themselves. Better yet, pass a FAIR tax and get rid of all the government meddling entirely. Let charities (funded by tax-free dollars) take on the job of finding food, housing, pointing to training, child care, etc., etc.<br />** That's over 50% of the budget right there. Now, the combined savings in the federal budget will create a sizable surplus down the road, to pay off the national debt and lower our interest payments. A balanced budget amendment is a good idea now, and would prevent government from spending outside its means in the future. <br />-- Rein in the EPA; get rid of its armed agents. Strip back the Dept. of Ed. to just its basic function of collecting "best practice" information from the states and passing it around. Eliminate the Tea Tasting Board if that hasn't been done yet. <br /><br />These are suggestions counting for about 2/3 of federal spending, and a much higher percent of future federal spending. Some spending would remain in many categories, but it would be far less and far more efficacious. jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-47792692127319585662016-01-05T14:06:04.940-06:002016-01-05T14:06:04.940-06:00The Supreme Court has made it pretty clear that we...The Supreme Court has made it pretty clear that we are not entitled to anything based on the payroll taxes we paid. We have no ownership rights and the politicians can change the law at anytime.<br /><br />They sure would not be popular though...<br /><br />The Liberals already have cut or taxed the benefits for people with money. And they want to eliminate the payroll tax cap without increasing benefits. All of this is pushing the excellent programs from an earned benefits closer to a wealth transfer technique. My proposal just makes it clear what it is.<br /><br />As Jerry said... A way to care for the old, widows and orphans...Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-89505734903904614232016-01-05T13:50:13.416-06:002016-01-05T13:50:13.416-06:00Simplest solution is stop paying SS, Medicare, Dis...Simplest solution is stop paying SS, Medicare, Disability, Survivor, etc benefits to anyone with a net worth greater than $50K.<br /><br />Not all that simple, really, and that would be punishing the prosperous by taking away entitlements which they earned and to which they are entitled.<br /><br />--HiramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-60684077803942169592016-01-05T12:29:44.423-06:002016-01-05T12:29:44.423-06:00Simplest solution is stop paying SS, Medicare, Dis...Simplest solution is stop paying SS, Medicare, Disability, Survivor, etc benefits to anyone with a net worth greater than $50K.<br /><br />Better yet, kill the programs and have them use Medicaid and Welfare. <br /><br />The problem of course... will people be willing to pay payroll taxes after that.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-3845672886329029332016-01-05T12:07:41.051-06:002016-01-05T12:07:41.051-06:00Here's the problem: before too long, you can&#...Here's the problem: before too long, you can't have a ceiling of 33% of GDP without whacking Social Security and Medicare for current and soon-to-be retirees. Unless you're essentially willing to have a government that just does SS, Medicare, and national defense. What specific tradeoffs are you advocating we make in order to keep spending at 33% of GDP or less?Seanhttp://brickcityblog.comnoreply@blogger.com