Taxes...and you

[johngalt1234]

I believe the FEDERAL government IS too big. I believe that many of its functions rightly should be performed at the state and/or local level.  My only point is that taxes at some level must be levied to provide for, not only those things that the Constitution says we can do, but also for things which we have agreed as a society are desireable to do. Relying strictly on consumption taxes is not the answer. Nor is a voluntary system.

If we are to live in this country we should live by the constitution. Just because a majority are in favor of a certain program, shouldnt be reason enough for a program to be implemented.  This country is founded on the basis of individual rights and when a majority votes for a particular program, the dissenting minority shouldnt have to go along with it.  There is no limit to the number of programs that will be agreed to if someone else is paying for it.

[johngalt1234]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1710.cfm


For those of you who think the Government is not big enough....here are some facts and figures... Makes for interesting reading

Thanks for the link. It a nice article, and I, too, would like to see the Federal Government control some of its unnecessary program spending. Some can be cut, some should be choices of states or local governments to fund.

However, this is not where we disagree. You claim that "private enterprise has a greater vested interest to innovate". I disagree and want you to back up that statement with facts. The largest corporations also maintain costly and ineffective programs that should be cut, but they don't for internal political reasons. There are small units of government that are quite innovative in how they deliver services.

There are examples big and small of business and governments that do well or poorly. They are all run by people who report to someone. That's what makes them more alike than different.

I am talking of rational human behavior here....
Would you expect a natural mother to take better care of her children than a foster parent. Sure they can provide comparable care, the difference being a personal interest because the children are hers.
In the case of private enterprise the motive is profit with the natural connotation being that one enters into a business to make money. If they innovate, are more efficient  they get to pocket all the savings.

I hope that answers your question

[Bogart]

I believe the FEDERAL government IS too big. I believe that many of its functions rightly should be performed at the state and/or local level.  My only point is that taxes at some level must be levied to provide for, not only those things that the Constitution says we can do, but also for things which we have agreed as a society are desireable to do. Relying strictly on consumption taxes is not the answer. Nor is a voluntary system.

If we are to live in this country we should live by the constitution. Just because a majority are in favor of a certain program, shouldnt be reason enough for a program to be implemented.  This country is founded on the basis of individual rights and when a majority votes for a particular program, the dissenting minority shouldnt have to go along with it.  There is no limit to the number of programs that will be agreed to if someone else is paying for it.

Except, that's our system. The majority does decide for everyone.  If we all had the power to decide which laws we are going to abide by and which we are not it would be anarchy. The only constitutional requirement is that those who wind up in a minority on any issue have the right to provide their input.  There is no taxation without representation.  Yes, there is theoretically no limit to the number of programs that could be agreed to if someone else is paying.  But, that's the whole point. Someone else isn't paying, we all are paying--after debating the merits. My argument is based on the belief that we have agreed to spending too much, not that we don't have the right to agree to spend too much.

[johngalt1234]

Bogart,

Our system is based on the constitution. It only allows you to do certain things. The constitution has been subverted to put all these social programs in place.

Notice how very difficult it is to amend the constitution. Our founding fathers we very aware of human nature and made it so, else plenty of worse ideas would have made their way into the constitution.

[muon2]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1710.cfm


For those of you who think the Government is not big enough....here are some facts and figures... Makes for interesting reading

Thanks for the link. It a nice article, and I, too, would like to see the Federal Government control some of its unnecessary program spending. Some can be cut, some should be choices of states or local governments to fund.

However, this is not where we disagree. You claim that "private enterprise has a greater vested interest to innovate". I disagree and want you to back up that statement with facts. The largest corporations also maintain costly and ineffective programs that should be cut, but they don't for internal political reasons. There are small units of government that are quite innovative in how they deliver services.

There are examples big and small of business and governments that do well or poorly. They are all run by people who report to someone. That's what makes them more alike than different.

I am talking of rational human behavior here....
Would you expect a natural mother to take better care of her children than a foster parent. Sure they can provide comparable care, the difference being a personal interest because the children are hers.
In the case of private enterprise the motive is profit with the natural connotation being that one enters into a business to make money. If they innovate, are more efficient  they get to pocket all the savings.

I hope that answers your question

Unfortunately it does not answer the request I posed. I asked for facts and you continue to give me your opinion. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but opinions are not facts.

For example you talk about mothers.  As an example I can give you many cases, including some in my own family, of natural mothers doing a dramatically worse job of mothering than a child would get from a loving foster or adoptive mother. And the cases I thinking of don't involve drugs or alcohol - just people with poor, but very human, judgement.

You also keep talking about the profit motive as if every private employee had it and every public employee didn't. There are innumerable counter examples. For starters most private employees are there to work - the same reason that most public employees are in their positions. In both cases their motive is to do well at their jobs to make a living. There is no difference in profit motive among the vast majority of workers.

[johngalt1234]

lets look at it in a different way...

1. No matter what Governments will be there.
2. A Govt earns revenue through force (I know people like to call it voluntary) but I consider voluntary like when you drop your tithe in the church basket.

I am good employee of Govt. If I screw up worst  thing that can happen to me...is I get fired...and the taxpayer foots the bill

I am good employee of a corporation. If I screw up...worst thing that can happen if I screw up...I get fired..the business may no longer be a viable one and can be shut down.

Two wholly different outcomes are possible.
Govt. has no incentive to innovate. They are going to get funded regardless. How many govts have you seen go bankrupt in your lifetime....Compare that with the number of businesses.

The desire to do a good job may be present in the person being employed by the Govt and private enterprise.  The survival of Govt is not dependent in the manner the job is done whereas in Private enterprise it is.

[swarch]

Taxes are voluntary....if you don't like them, move out of the country.

Gee, this elicits a range of thoughts.

First, I'm surprised that a Democrat would trot out this line. The "love it or leave it" attitude is usually associated with right-wing reactionaries.

But OK, move where? If there were a country with significantly lower taxes, I'd probably go there. I moved from Ontario to Texas in the mid-90's, when Ontario elected an NDP (~left-wing Democratic) government that raised taxes significantly. Work took me to California a few years ago, but now I'm returning to Texas, largely because it has no state income tax.

Taxes are ubiquitous. The world is rife with statists who make it so. Over the past several years, the OECD has pressured tax havens into abandoning financial secrecy, ostensibly for the purpose of tracking laundered drug money, and now to track terrorist financing. However, they will undoubtedly use their new snooping powers to track legitimate offshore assets in case they later decide to institute exchange controls or other draconian measures.

A big initiative in the EU is tax harmonization--that is, high taxes everywhere, so that no one can escape by moving elsewhere. The fat-cat EU governments fear tax competition and want to fence in and monitor their sheep so that all can be regularly and thoroughly fleeced.

Limiting the federal government to its constitutional functions could mitigate this; hopefully we'd see tax competition among the states. You should pray that this day never arrives, because you'll see taxpayers abandoning high-tax jurisdictions in droves, leaving the tax consumers to plunder each other in splendid isolation.

In any event, there's H.L. Mencken's response:

Q. If you find so much that is unworthy of reverence in the United States, then why do you live here?
A. Why do men go to zoos?

[Bogart]

Bogart,

Our system is based on the constitution. It only allows you to do certain things. The constitution has been subverted to put all these social programs in place.

Notice how very difficult it is to amend the constitution. Our founding fathers we very aware of human nature and made it so, else plenty of worse ideas would have made their way into the constitution.

Most of the Constitution is devoted to what the Federal government MAY NOT do. The rest deals primarily with how it shall be set up.  It also outlines a few things which are Federal obligations. There is no prohibition in the Constitution on social programs, whether or not I agree with any particular one. There is mention of the Federal government's obligation or purpose to "promote the general welfare."  It is not whether it should, but how.

As far as taxes, the Constitution was amended to allow for income tax.  Otherwise, it is fairly silent on the subject except to say that Congress has the power to levy such taxes as it deems necessary to, again, "promote the general welfare."  Presumeably, these would also be appropriate to spend on military expenditures, etc. as the Federal government has specific obligation to "provide for the common defense."

The Framers were fairly specific as to which activities they chose to prohibit. They even went to the trouble of listing ten more after the fact that they couldn't get into the original document.  To say that the Constitution prohibits any kind of social program is just not so and expands the Constitution beyond what it actually says.

[swarch]

Most of the Constitution is devoted to what the Federal government MAY NOT do. The rest deals primarily with how it shall be set up.  It also outlines a few things which are Federal obligations. There is no prohibition in the Constitution on social programs, whether or not I agree with any particular one. There is mention of the Federal government's obligation or purpose to "promote the general welfare."  It is not whether it should, but how.

As far as taxes, the Constitution was amended to allow for income tax.  Otherwise, it is fairly silent on the subject except to say that Congress has the power to levy such taxes as it deems necessary to, again, "promote the general welfare."  Presumeably, these would also be appropriate to spend on military expenditures, etc. as the Federal government has specific obligation to "provide for the common defense."

The Framers were fairly specific as to which activities they chose to prohibit. They even went to the trouble of listing ten more after the fact that they couldn't get into the original document.  To say that the Constitution prohibits any kind of social program is just not so and expands the Constitution beyond what it actually says.

Amendment X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This means that the federal government may NOT undertake anything not specifically authorized by the Constitution. Everything else is up to the States or "the people", the latter referring to individuals, both by process of elimination (else why distinguish the "United States" from "the people") and by the Framers' intent (as documented in their debates). A State may therefore operate compulsory social programs unless its own constitution prohibits this.

By "the general welfare", the Framers meant things that benefit everyone more or less equally. Social programs don't qualify because they benefit some at the expense of others. It is the activist judiciary that have expanded the Constitution far beyond what it says, to the point where it has been virtually gelded.

[muon2]

lets look at it in a different way...

1. No matter what Governments will be there.
2. A Govt earns revenue through force (I know people like to call it voluntary) but I consider voluntary like when you drop your tithe in the church basket.

I am good employee of Govt. If I screw up worst  thing that can happen to me...is I get fired...and the taxpayer foots the bill

I am good employee of a corporation. If I screw up...worst thing that can happen if I screw up...I get fired..the business may no longer be a viable one and can be shut down.

Two wholly different outcomes are possible.
Govt. has no incentive to innovate. They are going to get funded regardless. How many govts have you seen go bankrupt in your lifetime....Compare that with the number of businesses.

The desire to do a good job may be present in the person being employed by the Govt and private enterprise.  The survival of Govt is not dependent in the manner the job is done whereas in Private enterprise it is.

Thanks for a much clearer answer to my post.

First, let me see if we agree on this: You compare two employees, who worst outcome is to be fired. It doesn't matter whteher they are public or private employees. I would conclude that these employees are equally likely to be innovative, since they have equal personal stakes in the outcome.

That leads me to think that innovation in business must come from the management/ownership policies. These policies are implemented by the workers and would therefore make it successful.

But doesn't each unit of government (and there a thousands of independent governments in the US) also have top policy makers? They do, and they are elected by the people. Indeed they are also sometimes innovators who can inspire their employees to implement innovation.

I can see your point about the fact that businesses go out oif business at a higher rate that units of government. But that is not an entirely exact comparison. The better comparison is that in business the top policy makers lose control of their business through bankruptcy, buy-out, or other mechanism. In the public sector, top policy makers who fail to deliver quality at a fair price also lose control of their enterprise. It's called losing an election.

[johngalt1234]

Point made...Thank you for the discussion

[Bogart]

Most of the Constitution is devoted to what the Federal government MAY NOT do. The rest deals primarily with how it shall be set up.  It also outlines a few things which are Federal obligations. There is no prohibition in the Constitution on social programs, whether or not I agree with any particular one. There is mention of the Federal government's obligation or purpose to "promote the general welfare."  It is not whether it should, but how.

As far as taxes, the Constitution was amended to allow for income tax.  Otherwise, it is fairly silent on the subject except to say that Congress has the power to levy such taxes as it deems necessary to, again, "promote the general welfare."  Presumeably, these would also be appropriate to spend on military expenditures, etc. as the Federal government has specific obligation to "provide for the common defense."

The Framers were fairly specific as to which activities they chose to prohibit. They even went to the trouble of listing ten more after the fact that they couldn't get into the original document.  To say that the Constitution prohibits any kind of social program is just not so and expands the Constitution beyond what it actually says.

Amendment X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This means that the federal government may NOT undertake anything not specifically authorized by the Constitution. Everything else is up to the States or "the people", the latter referring to individuals, both by process of elimination (else why distinguish the "United States" from "the people") and by the Framers' intent (as documented in their debates). A State may therefore operate compulsory social programs unless its own constitution prohibits this.

By "the general welfare", the Framers meant things that benefit everyone more or less equally. Social programs don't qualify because they benefit some at the expense of others. It is the activist judiciary that have expanded the Constitution far beyond what it says, to the point where it has been virtually gelded.

It doesn't say "specifically delegated" and the "activist judiciary" is acting within the scope of their job. If we don't like their decisions, we need to appoint judges that see it more strictly. There are many things that are not specifically mentioned, but are implied in order to make those which are specifically mentioned fully meaningful. This is the "prenumbrae" argument.