CDZ Why do Conservatives believe that America is no longer great?

[oldsoul]

How much more money would you be able to give to charities if your taxes where reduced? Furthermore, as a self proclaimed wealthy person, what percentage of your wealth is donated to the needy? I do not expect, nor do I want the answers to these questions, they are personal, and merely for the exercise of thinking on the topic.
That said, how much more would individuals do if they knew that there was not a government program to support those who cannot/do not support themselves. I beleive you underestimate the charity of the American people, if they where to be relieved of the burden of high taxes.

As to your "curiosity", just because I did not list the same sources of help, does not mean that I beleive the lists (in entirety) would be different.

I know very few wealthy people who said.....If my taxes are reduced, I will give all the money to charity

Didn't happen when Reagan reduced their taxes, didn't happen when Bush reduced their taxes

So, I assume, then that you support higher taxes to do the "work" that charities do not/cannot. How high is high enough? How much of your income are you willing to give to the government? Why should you have the ability to force me to be more charitable? If you really believe that the government is the answer then it would stand to reason that you would be willing to write a check to the IRS for a larger sum than you owe, do you do that? Or do you do as most of us do and try to keep your tax gurden as low as possible?

I find it very interesting that those who say that government is the answer, nearly always also say that someone else should pay for it. The usual target is the "top 1%". According to {{meta.title}}"The average annual income of the top 1 percent of the population is $717,000, ..."According to the CBO: the buget deficit for FY 2016 is $544 Billion. Budget. Now there are 318,857,056 adults in the US according to census.gov. According to Forbes.com there are about 85 million tax payers in the US. So some quick math here:

• 1% of 318.9 million (rounded) is 3.189 million people are the top 1%.
• Combining the average annual income results in a sum of $2,286,513,000. (I'll just round it to 2.3 billion)
• So, if we taxed the top 1% at 100% we would be about 541.7 billion short of the deficit.
• 541.7 billion divided 85 million ways is about $6,372.94.

Are you paying your fair share?

How much of my income am I willing to give to the government?

Depends on what we are getting in return
Some things can be performed more efficiciently by government than if I paid for it myself. In that case, I'd rather pay the government to do it

Other than National Defense, which most would agree is most efficiently executed by the Feds, what would you say they do most efficiently?

All infrastructure
Space exploration
Public welfare
Healthcare
Disease control
The monetary system

If by infrastructure you mean this, "Infrastructure refers to the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area,[1] including the services and facilities necessary for its economy to function.[2] It typically characterises technical structures such as roads, bridges, tunnels, water supply, sewers, electrical grids, telecommunications, and so forth, and can be defined as "the physical components of interrelated systems providing commodities and services essential to enable, sustain, or enhance societal living conditions."[3]" from wikipedia.org, then I can see your point. I would say that certain parts may, under the right conditions, be more efficiently done by private business. Of course, for uniformity and continuity they would have to meet government specs, but I think most, if not all could be done efficiently by private companies. In fact, last I checked, my cable company (telecommunications) is private, some electric companies are private, and I understand there is a test project in Texas concerning the viability of private companies operating roads.

I'll give you space exploration. As far as I know there is little profit motivation for it, however that does seem to be changing.

If by "public welfare" you mean programs such as AFDC and Food Stamps, I cannot refute that with any hard evidence. However, I do have great faith in the American people to take care of their neighbors in times of need. I base this on the reaction people tend to have when there is a large natural disaster.

Healthcare? Really? Are you saying that single payer is the way to go? Ask the Canadians how that is working out. Or Cuba. Or so many other places. Their rich come here because they can afford to get the very best. Private enterprise did that.

I'll give you Disease control. There is no way that private business could do that job without government-like powers.

Monetary System, I give you that one only because we are no longer on a system backed by anything but the "full faith and credit of the United States of America". AKA our money is worthless paper and scrap metal without the government. Wasn't always that way, but it is now.

 

[oldsoul]

In light of the preceding, I ask this.

• What should be/is the United States' stance regarding its citizens who, again for whatever reason, need food, clothing, shelter and education and who cannot pay for it one their own?
• Are you okay with allowing any of your fellow citizens to starve and/or go homeless and unclothed? If so, to what extent, that is, at what point does it not become "okay" to let that happen?
• If you don't find it acceptable to allow folks to go hungry and homeless, of the various solutions that exist or that you can design anew, which of them has the greatest potential to ensure the fewest number of people at any given point in time are hungry and homeless?

1. The stance should be, "Let the state and/or local governments deal with it." They are most knowledgeable about the needs and best equiped to manage those needs.
2. No, I am not. To that end I do what I can to help them, on a case by case, individual basis. There is no need for government intrusion into this transaction.
3. Charities. Churches. Civil organizations. Certainly not the Federal Government. We have poured more and more money into this "war on poverty" and yet there is no end in sight. Partly because the "end" is constantly being moved.

Okay. I agree with your answers to questions one and two.

Regarding question three, I don't agree. I don't agree because in spite of the billions the government spends to eradicate hunger, homelessness, etc., charities have not even filled the gap needed to bring our nation to zero involuntary hunger and homelessness, or poverty if you prefer that term. If charities cannot fill the gap now, I have no rational basis for thinking they can do it absent governmental contributions seeing as doing so would require more resources from charities than they today deliver.

Out of curiosity, how are your answers one and three not incongruous?

How much more money would you be able to give to charities if your taxes where reduced? Furthermore, as a self proclaimed wealthy person, what percentage of your wealth is donated to the needy? I do not expect, nor do I want the answers to these questions, they are personal, and merely for the exercise of thinking on the topic.
That said, how much more would individuals do if they knew that there was not a government program to support those who cannot/do not support themselves. I beleive you underestimate the charity of the American people, if they where to be relieved of the burden of high taxes.

As to your "curiosity", just because I did not list the same sources of help, does not mean that I beleive the lists (in entirety) would be different.

I know very few wealthy people who said.....If my taxes are reduced, I will give all the money to charity

Didn't happen when Reagan reduced their taxes, didn't happen when Bush reduced their taxes

Exactly...and the reason, IMO, is that upon reaching ~$465K/year (in 2015) in income, the tax rates become regressive. Equally important, do you know of most folks who are not wealthy saying that? I don't.

I know that were I to pay less in taxes, I doubt my charitable giving would materially increase, even if it did increase incrementally. I know that my personal situation is such that none of my discretionary spending is going to change because I pay a bit more or a bit less in taxes.

Now if my tax rate were to change by some 20 or 30 percent, well, then my discretionary spending habits would change somewhat; however, even if that change were a decrease, I doubt I'd give tens to hundreds of thousands more to charity. On the other hand, if the change were an increase of that extent, I'd surely give less to charity. The thing is that no recent President has advocated for a tax cut or increase on that scale....two to three percent is the most I've seen, and that's not enough to change anything. One need not even be comfortable for that to be so. The simple fact is that tax cuts and increases are not life changing in nature for most taxpayers, so why they even grumble and grouse about it is beyond me?

Here is why, If we don't "grumble and grouse" over the incremental increases we will see the reverse of this gragh.

I don't know about you, but I would rather keep more of what I earn. Even if it is only a few dollars, it's mine.

 

[rightwinger]

I know very few wealthy people who said.....If my taxes are reduced, I will give all the money to charity

Didn't happen when Reagan reduced their taxes, didn't happen when Bush reduced their taxes

So, I assume, then that you support higher taxes to do the "work" that charities do not/cannot. How high is high enough? How much of your income are you willing to give to the government? Why should you have the ability to force me to be more charitable? If you really believe that the government is the answer then it would stand to reason that you would be willing to write a check to the IRS for a larger sum than you owe, do you do that? Or do you do as most of us do and try to keep your tax gurden as low as possible?

I find it very interesting that those who say that government is the answer, nearly always also say that someone else should pay for it. The usual target is the "top 1%". According to {{meta.title}}"The average annual income of the top 1 percent of the population is $717,000, ..."According to the CBO: the buget deficit for FY 2016 is $544 Billion. Budget. Now there are 318,857,056 adults in the US according to census.gov. According to Forbes.com there are about 85 million tax payers in the US. So some quick math here:

• 1% of 318.9 million (rounded) is 3.189 million people are the top 1%.
• Combining the average annual income results in a sum of $2,286,513,000. (I'll just round it to 2.3 billion)
• So, if we taxed the top 1% at 100% we would be about 541.7 billion short of the deficit.
• 541.7 billion divided 85 million ways is about $6,372.94.

Are you paying your fair share?

How much of my income am I willing to give to the government?

Depends on what we are getting in return
Some things can be performed more efficiciently by government than if I paid for it myself. In that case, I'd rather pay the government to do it

Other than National Defense, which most would agree is most efficiently executed by the Feds, what would you say they do most efficiently?

All infrastructure
Space exploration
Public welfare
Healthcare
Disease control
The monetary system

If by infrastructure you mean this, "Infrastructure refers to the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area,[1] including the services and facilities necessary for its economy to function.[2] It typically characterises technical structures such as roads, bridges, tunnels, water supply, sewers, electrical grids, telecommunications, and so forth, and can be defined as "the physical components of interrelated systems providing commodities and services essential to enable, sustain, or enhance societal living conditions."[3]" from wikipedia.org, then I can see your point. I would say that certain parts may, under the right conditions, be more efficiently done by private business. Of course, for uniformity and continuity they would have to meet government specs, but I think most, if not all could be done efficiently by private companies. In fact, last I checked, my cable company (telecommunications) is private, some electric companies are private, and I understand there is a test project in Texas concerning the viability of private companies operating roads.

I'll give you space exploration. As far as I know there is little profit motivation for it, however that does seem to be changing.

If by "public welfare" you mean programs such as AFDC and Food Stamps, I cannot refute that with any hard evidence. However, I do have great faith in the American people to take care of their neighbors in times of need. I base this on the reaction people tend to have when there is a large natural disaster.

Healthcare? Really? Are you saying that single payer is the way to go? Ask the Canadians how that is working out. Or Cuba. Or so many other places. Their rich come here because they can afford to get the very best. Private enterprise did that.

I'll give you Disease control. There is no way that private business could do that job without government-like powers.

Monetary System, I give you that one only because we are no longer on a system backed by anything but the "full faith and credit of the United States of America". AKA our money is worthless paper and scrap metal without the government. Wasn't always that way, but it is now.

I knew healthcare would draw your attention

I do not consider our insurance centered healthcare system to be efficient. Insurance is nothing but a middle man. They add nothing to your healthcare. They pool your money and decide who will be covered for what
Doctors spend too much on billing and negotiating with insurance companies. That is far from efficient
I do not see Canadians or Brits clamoring to adopt our healthcare system

 

[jc456]

America is still the greatest country. However, it has fallen from its previous stature.

Why isn't it as great as it was?

We lose wars, we are too dependant on government, our politicians lie to us and spend too much money. We betray our allies and kiss our enemies asses. We hardly manufacture anything ourselvee anymore, we stopped going into space on our own, our president runs around apologizing to other countries. Our borders are porous and our laws are ignored. Our education system is in ruins and our children are getting less and less educated. More and more people are out of work, our debt is so high it may never get repaid. All of the progress we made in race relations has been wiped out.

And a large portion of the population are so ignorant, so lacking in education and critical thinking that they are actually concidering a socialist for president.

I would say that the people who are most lacking in critical thinking capability are those who are voting for a bombastic carnival barker who has no real ideas for solving problems but is claiming he will make America "great again". Do you believe that there is a country in the world that is currently "greater" than the USA? If so, what standards do you apply to make that determination?

it isn't what we think of as how great america is, it is the rest of the world thought. And no the rest of the world is looking at us as chumps. They laugh at us. Our president goes to Paris and promises a194 nations we'll pay them for carbon credits.

and refugee fantasy island.

outside of this country they laugh at you.... not our president. they do think our wingnuts are bizarre, though.

have you ever been out of the country or know anyone from out of the country?

They are beyond belief that anyone would support Trump

I agree it's beyond belief that anyone could vote for a criminal like Clinton. unbelievable.

 

[jc456]

So, I assume, then that you support higher taxes to do the "work" that charities do not/cannot. How high is high enough? How much of your income are you willing to give to the government? Why should you have the ability to force me to be more charitable? If you really believe that the government is the answer then it would stand to reason that you would be willing to write a check to the IRS for a larger sum than you owe, do you do that? Or do you do as most of us do and try to keep your tax gurden as low as possible?

I find it very interesting that those who say that government is the answer, nearly always also say that someone else should pay for it. The usual target is the "top 1%". According to {{meta.title}}"The average annual income of the top 1 percent of the population is $717,000, ..."According to the CBO: the buget deficit for FY 2016 is $544 Billion. Budget. Now there are 318,857,056 adults in the US according to census.gov. According to Forbes.com there are about 85 million tax payers in the US. So some quick math here:

• 1% of 318.9 million (rounded) is 3.189 million people are the top 1%.
• Combining the average annual income results in a sum of $2,286,513,000. (I'll just round it to 2.3 billion)
• So, if we taxed the top 1% at 100% we would be about 541.7 billion short of the deficit.
• 541.7 billion divided 85 million ways is about $6,372.94.

Are you paying your fair share?

How much of my income am I willing to give to the government?

Depends on what we are getting in return
Some things can be performed more efficiciently by government than if I paid for it myself. In that case, I'd rather pay the government to do it

Other than National Defense, which most would agree is most efficiently executed by the Feds, what would you say they do most efficiently?

All infrastructure
Space exploration
Public welfare
Healthcare
Disease control
The monetary system

If by infrastructure you mean this, "Infrastructure refers to the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area,[1] including the services and facilities necessary for its economy to function.[2] It typically characterises technical structures such as roads, bridges, tunnels, water supply, sewers, electrical grids, telecommunications, and so forth, and can be defined as "the physical components of interrelated systems providing commodities and services essential to enable, sustain, or enhance societal living conditions."[3]" from wikipedia.org, then I can see your point. I would say that certain parts may, under the right conditions, be more efficiently done by private business. Of course, for uniformity and continuity they would have to meet government specs, but I think most, if not all could be done efficiently by private companies. In fact, last I checked, my cable company (telecommunications) is private, some electric companies are private, and I understand there is a test project in Texas concerning the viability of private companies operating roads.

I'll give you space exploration. As far as I know there is little profit motivation for it, however that does seem to be changing.

If by "public welfare" you mean programs such as AFDC and Food Stamps, I cannot refute that with any hard evidence. However, I do have great faith in the American people to take care of their neighbors in times of need. I base this on the reaction people tend to have when there is a large natural disaster.

Healthcare? Really? Are you saying that single payer is the way to go? Ask the Canadians how that is working out. Or Cuba. Or so many other places. Their rich come here because they can afford to get the very best. Private enterprise did that.

I'll give you Disease control. There is no way that private business could do that job without government-like powers.

Monetary System, I give you that one only because we are no longer on a system backed by anything but the "full faith and credit of the United States of America". AKA our money is worthless paper and scrap metal without the government. Wasn't always that way, but it is now.

I knew healthcare would draw your attention

I do not consider our insurance centered healthcare system to be efficient. Insurance is nothing but a middle man. They add nothing to your healthcare. They pool your money and decide who will be covered for what
Doctors spend too much on billing and negotiating with insurance companies. That is far from efficient

ding, ding, ding, ding!!!!!!! And obamacare made all of that worse, not better. The wrong correction was made by liberals.

 

[oldsoul]

So, I assume, then that you support higher taxes to do the "work" that charities do not/cannot. How high is high enough? How much of your income are you willing to give to the government? Why should you have the ability to force me to be more charitable? If you really believe that the government is the answer then it would stand to reason that you would be willing to write a check to the IRS for a larger sum than you owe, do you do that? Or do you do as most of us do and try to keep your tax gurden as low as possible?

I find it very interesting that those who say that government is the answer, nearly always also say that someone else should pay for it. The usual target is the "top 1%". According to {{meta.title}}"The average annual income of the top 1 percent of the population is $717,000, ..."According to the CBO: the buget deficit for FY 2016 is $544 Billion. Budget. Now there are 318,857,056 adults in the US according to census.gov. According to Forbes.com there are about 85 million tax payers in the US. So some quick math here:

• 1% of 318.9 million (rounded) is 3.189 million people are the top 1%.
• Combining the average annual income results in a sum of $2,286,513,000. (I'll just round it to 2.3 billion)
• So, if we taxed the top 1% at 100% we would be about 541.7 billion short of the deficit.
• 541.7 billion divided 85 million ways is about $6,372.94.

Are you paying your fair share?

How much of my income am I willing to give to the government?

Depends on what we are getting in return
Some things can be performed more efficiciently by government than if I paid for it myself. In that case, I'd rather pay the government to do it

Other than National Defense, which most would agree is most efficiently executed by the Feds, what would you say they do most efficiently?

All infrastructure
Space exploration
Public welfare
Healthcare
Disease control
The monetary system

If by infrastructure you mean this, "Infrastructure refers to the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area,[1] including the services and facilities necessary for its economy to function.[2] It typically characterises technical structures such as roads, bridges, tunnels, water supply, sewers, electrical grids, telecommunications, and so forth, and can be defined as "the physical components of interrelated systems providing commodities and services essential to enable, sustain, or enhance societal living conditions."[3]" from wikipedia.org, then I can see your point. I would say that certain parts may, under the right conditions, be more efficiently done by private business. Of course, for uniformity and continuity they would have to meet government specs, but I think most, if not all could be done efficiently by private companies. In fact, last I checked, my cable company (telecommunications) is private, some electric companies are private, and I understand there is a test project in Texas concerning the viability of private companies operating roads.

I'll give you space exploration. As far as I know there is little profit motivation for it, however that does seem to be changing.

If by "public welfare" you mean programs such as AFDC and Food Stamps, I cannot refute that with any hard evidence. However, I do have great faith in the American people to take care of their neighbors in times of need. I base this on the reaction people tend to have when there is a large natural disaster.

Healthcare? Really? Are you saying that single payer is the way to go? Ask the Canadians how that is working out. Or Cuba. Or so many other places. Their rich come here because they can afford to get the very best. Private enterprise did that.

I'll give you Disease control. There is no way that private business could do that job without government-like powers.

Monetary System, I give you that one only because we are no longer on a system backed by anything but the "full faith and credit of the United States of America". AKA our money is worthless paper and scrap metal without the government. Wasn't always that way, but it is now.

I knew healthcare would draw your attention

I do not consider our insurance centered healthcare system to be efficient. Insurance is nothing but a middle man. They add nothing to your healthcare. They pool your money and decide who will be covered for what
Doctors spend too much on billing and negotiating with insurance companies. That is far from efficient

And now they spend too much time making sure they are complying with the law. Which is worse?
By the way there is a concept that has really taken off recently. It's called Concierge Health Care (I think, someting to that effect). In a nutshell how it works is a person pays a set amount to their doctor for the year. This buys them a certain amount of service, used at mutually agreed upon times. I you want more than me, you have to pay more. It is, reportedly, giving the patient-doctor relationship back to the patient and the doctor, no "middle-man" as you put it. And the best part, it's private enterprise doing it.

 

[jillian]

How much of my income am I willing to give to the government?

Depends on what we are getting in return
Some things can be performed more efficiciently by government than if I paid for it myself. In that case, I'd rather pay the government to do it

Other than National Defense, which most would agree is most efficiently executed by the Feds, what would you say they do most efficiently?

All infrastructure
Space exploration
Public welfare
Healthcare
Disease control
The monetary system

If by infrastructure you mean this, "Infrastructure refers to the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area,[1] including the services and facilities necessary for its economy to function.[2] It typically characterises technical structures such as roads, bridges, tunnels, water supply, sewers, electrical grids, telecommunications, and so forth, and can be defined as "the physical components of interrelated systems providing commodities and services essential to enable, sustain, or enhance societal living conditions."[3]" from wikipedia.org, then I can see your point. I would say that certain parts may, under the right conditions, be more efficiently done by private business. Of course, for uniformity and continuity they would have to meet government specs, but I think most, if not all could be done efficiently by private companies. In fact, last I checked, my cable company (telecommunications) is private, some electric companies are private, and I understand there is a test project in Texas concerning the viability of private companies operating roads.

I'll give you space exploration. As far as I know there is little profit motivation for it, however that does seem to be changing.

If by "public welfare" you mean programs such as AFDC and Food Stamps, I cannot refute that with any hard evidence. However, I do have great faith in the American people to take care of their neighbors in times of need. I base this on the reaction people tend to have when there is a large natural disaster.

Healthcare? Really? Are you saying that single payer is the way to go? Ask the Canadians how that is working out. Or Cuba. Or so many other places. Their rich come here because they can afford to get the very best. Private enterprise did that.

I'll give you Disease control. There is no way that private business could do that job without government-like powers.

Monetary System, I give you that one only because we are no longer on a system backed by anything but the "full faith and credit of the United States of America". AKA our money is worthless paper and scrap metal without the government. Wasn't always that way, but it is now.

I knew healthcare would draw your attention

I do not consider our insurance centered healthcare system to be efficient. Insurance is nothing but a middle man. They add nothing to your healthcare. They pool your money and decide who will be covered for what
Doctors spend too much on billing and negotiating with insurance companies. That is far from efficient

ding, ding, ding, ding!!!!!!! And obamacare made all of that worse, not better. The wrong correction was made by liberals.

Well how has it hurt you personally. Because a lot more people have insurance now than before and if you have a problem with it save your complaints for the heritage fiundation

Amazing that anyone could vote for the theocrats in the GOP clown car.

Oh and hack if Hillary were a "criminal" I figure the millions of dollars you wingers spent of our tax money would have found something.

 

[rightwinger]

How much of my income am I willing to give to the government?

Depends on what we are getting in return
Some things can be performed more efficiciently by government than if I paid for it myself. In that case, I'd rather pay the government to do it

Other than National Defense, which most would agree is most efficiently executed by the Feds, what would you say they do most efficiently?

All infrastructure
Space exploration
Public welfare
Healthcare
Disease control
The monetary system

If by infrastructure you mean this, "Infrastructure refers to the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area,[1] including the services and facilities necessary for its economy to function.[2] It typically characterises technical structures such as roads, bridges, tunnels, water supply, sewers, electrical grids, telecommunications, and so forth, and can be defined as "the physical components of interrelated systems providing commodities and services essential to enable, sustain, or enhance societal living conditions."[3]" from wikipedia.org, then I can see your point. I would say that certain parts may, under the right conditions, be more efficiently done by private business. Of course, for uniformity and continuity they would have to meet government specs, but I think most, if not all could be done efficiently by private companies. In fact, last I checked, my cable company (telecommunications) is private, some electric companies are private, and I understand there is a test project in Texas concerning the viability of private companies operating roads.

I'll give you space exploration. As far as I know there is little profit motivation for it, however that does seem to be changing.

If by "public welfare" you mean programs such as AFDC and Food Stamps, I cannot refute that with any hard evidence. However, I do have great faith in the American people to take care of their neighbors in times of need. I base this on the reaction people tend to have when there is a large natural disaster.

Healthcare? Really? Are you saying that single payer is the way to go? Ask the Canadians how that is working out. Or Cuba. Or so many other places. Their rich come here because they can afford to get the very best. Private enterprise did that.

I'll give you Disease control. There is no way that private business could do that job without government-like powers.

Monetary System, I give you that one only because we are no longer on a system backed by anything but the "full faith and credit of the United States of America". AKA our money is worthless paper and scrap metal without the government. Wasn't always that way, but it is now.

I knew healthcare would draw your attention

I do not consider our insurance centered healthcare system to be efficient. Insurance is nothing but a middle man. They add nothing to your healthcare. They pool your money and decide who will be covered for what
Doctors spend too much on billing and negotiating with insurance companies. That is far from efficient

And now they spend too much time making sure they are complying with the law. Which is worse?
By the way there is a concept that has really taken off recently. It's called Concierge Health Care (I think, someting to that effect). In a nutshell how it works is a person pays a set amount to their doctor for the year. This buys them a certain amount of service, used at mutually agreed upon times. I you want more than me, you have to pay more. It is, reportedly, giving the patient-doctor relationship back to the patient and the doctor, no "middle-man" as you put it. And the best part, it's private enterprise doing it.

I have no problem with that....seems like an HMO

 

[320 Years of History]

1. The stance should be, "Let the state and/or local governments deal with it." They are most knowledgeable about the needs and best equiped to manage those needs.
2. No, I am not. To that end I do what I can to help them, on a case by case, individual basis. There is no need for government intrusion into this transaction.
3. Charities. Churches. Civil organizations. Certainly not the Federal Government. We have poured more and more money into this "war on poverty" and yet there is no end in sight. Partly because the "end" is constantly being moved.

Okay. I agree with your answers to questions one and two.

Regarding question three, I don't agree. I don't agree because in spite of the billions the government spends to eradicate hunger, homelessness, etc., charities have not even filled the gap needed to bring our nation to zero involuntary hunger and homelessness, or poverty if you prefer that term. If charities cannot fill the gap now, I have no rational basis for thinking they can do it absent governmental contributions seeing as doing so would require more resources from charities than they today deliver.

Out of curiosity, how are your answers one and three not incongruous?

How much more money would you be able to give to charities if your taxes where reduced? Furthermore, as a self proclaimed wealthy person, what percentage of your wealth is donated to the needy? I do not expect, nor do I want the answers to these questions, they are personal, and merely for the exercise of thinking on the topic.
That said, how much more would individuals do if they knew that there was not a government program to support those who cannot/do not support themselves. I beleive you underestimate the charity of the American people, if they where to be relieved of the burden of high taxes.

As to your "curiosity", just because I did not list the same sources of help, does not mean that I beleive the lists (in entirety) would be different.

I know very few wealthy people who said.....If my taxes are reduced, I will give all the money to charity

Didn't happen when Reagan reduced their taxes, didn't happen when Bush reduced their taxes

Exactly...and the reason, IMO, is that upon reaching ~$465K/year (in 2015) in income, the tax rates become regressive. Equally important, do you know of most folks who are not wealthy saying that? I don't.

I know that were I to pay less in taxes, I doubt my charitable giving would materially increase, even if it did increase incrementally. I know that my personal situation is such that none of my discretionary spending is going to change because I pay a bit more or a bit less in taxes.

Now if my tax rate were to change by some 20 or 30 percent, well, then my discretionary spending habits would change somewhat; however, even if that change were a decrease, I doubt I'd give tens to hundreds of thousands more to charity. On the other hand, if the change were an increase of that extent, I'd surely give less to charity. The thing is that no recent President has advocated for a tax cut or increase on that scale....two to three percent is the most I've seen, and that's not enough to change anything. One need not even be comfortable for that to be so. The simple fact is that tax cuts and increases are not life changing in nature for most taxpayers, so why they even grumble and grouse about it is beyond me?

Here is why, If we don't "grumble and grouse" over the incremental increases we will see the reverse of this gragh.

I don't know about you, but I would rather keep more of what I earn. Even if it is only a few dollars, it's mine.

Do you honestly believe that folks prior to the 1990s didn't complain about taxes? People have complained about taxes since the first tax was levied.

As an abstraction, nobody is going to say "I want to pay more money in taxes." Rational people, however, will look at the difference in a current and proposed tax and determine whether that difference is better spent by them on "whatever" or by the government on a "public good" or in attempting to achieve one or several humane outcomes for its citizens.

More importantly for this thread topic, I believe it'd be very hard to cogently and morally argue that how much any individual or group thereof must pay in taxes is a measure of a nation's greatness. Unless one if of a mind to push for a state having no government, one must accept that one will pay taxes. A better gauge by far is what a nation -- directly by the people's private spending and indirectly by them via their government -- does or does not do for and to its people, all of its people.

 

[jillian]

In light of the preceding, I ask this.

• What should be/is the United States' stance regarding its citizens who, again for whatever reason, need food, clothing, shelter and education and who cannot pay for it one their own?
• Are you okay with allowing any of your fellow citizens to starve and/or go homeless and unclothed? If so, to what extent, that is, at what point does it not become "okay" to let that happen?
• If you don't find it acceptable to allow folks to go hungry and homeless, of the various solutions that exist or that you can design anew, which of them has the greatest potential to ensure the fewest number of people at any given point in time are hungry and homeless?

1. The stance should be, "Let the state and/or local governments deal with it." They are most knowledgeable about the needs and best equiped to manage those needs.
2. No, I am not. To that end I do what I can to help them, on a case by case, individual basis. There is no need for government intrusion into this transaction.
3. Charities. Churches. Civil organizations. Certainly not the Federal Government. We have poured more and more money into this "war on poverty" and yet there is no end in sight. Partly because the "end" is constantly being moved.

Okay. I agree with your answers to questions one and two.

Regarding question three, I don't agree. I don't agree because in spite of the billions the government spends to eradicate hunger, homelessness, etc., charities have not even filled the gap needed to bring our nation to zero involuntary hunger and homelessness, or poverty if you prefer that term. If charities cannot fill the gap now, I have no rational basis for thinking they can do it absent governmental contributions seeing as doing so would require more resources from charities than they today deliver.

Out of curiosity, how are your answers one and three not incongruous?

How much more money would you be able to give to charities if your taxes where reduced? Furthermore, as a self proclaimed wealthy person, what percentage of your wealth is donated to the needy? I do not expect, nor do I want the answers to these questions, they are personal, and merely for the exercise of thinking on the topic.
That said, how much more would individuals do if they knew that there was not a government program to support those who cannot/do not support themselves. I beleive you underestimate the charity of the American people, if they where to be relieved of the burden of high taxes.

As to your "curiosity", just because I did not list the same sources of help, does not mean that I beleive the lists (in entirety) would be different.

I know very few wealthy people who said.....If my taxes are reduced, I will give all the money to charity

Didn't happen when Reagan reduced their taxes, didn't happen when Bush reduced their taxes

Exactly...and the reason, IMO, is that upon reaching ~$465K/year (in 2015) in income, the tax rates become regressive. Equally important, do you know of most folks who are not wealthy saying that? I don't.

I know that were I to pay less in taxes, I doubt my charitable giving would materially increase, even if it did increase incrementally. I know that my personal situation is such that none of my discretionary spending is going to change because I pay a bit more or a bit less in taxes.

Now if my tax rate were to change by some 20 or 30 percent, well, then my discretionary spending habits would change somewhat; however, even if that change were a decrease, I doubt I'd give tens to hundreds of thousands more to charity. On the other hand, if the change were an increase of that extent, I'd surely give less to charity. The thing is that no recent President has advocated for a tax cut or increase on that scale....two to three percent is the most I've seen, and that's not enough to change anything. One need not even be comfortable for that to be so. The simple fact is that tax cuts and increases are not life changing in nature for most taxpayers, so why they even grumble and grouse about it is beyond me?

While I agree with most of what you said the reality is that tax cuts for the top 1% create significant shortfall in our tax base. Allowing corporations like Exxon/mobile to get away with essentially paying no taxes at all is unconscionable when that money is needed for things that matter to a lot of people.

 

[320 Years of History]

How much of my income am I willing to give to the government?

Depends on what we are getting in return
Some things can be performed more efficiciently by government than if I paid for it myself. In that case, I'd rather pay the government to do it

Other than National Defense, which most would agree is most efficiently executed by the Feds, what would you say they do most efficiently?

All infrastructure
Space exploration
Public welfare
Healthcare
Disease control
The monetary system

If by infrastructure you mean this, "Infrastructure refers to the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area,[1] including the services and facilities necessary for its economy to function.[2] It typically characterises technical structures such as roads, bridges, tunnels, water supply, sewers, electrical grids, telecommunications, and so forth, and can be defined as "the physical components of interrelated systems providing commodities and services essential to enable, sustain, or enhance societal living conditions."[3]" from wikipedia.org, then I can see your point. I would say that certain parts may, under the right conditions, be more efficiently done by private business. Of course, for uniformity and continuity they would have to meet government specs, but I think most, if not all could be done efficiently by private companies. In fact, last I checked, my cable company (telecommunications) is private, some electric companies are private, and I understand there is a test project in Texas concerning the viability of private companies operating roads.

I'll give you space exploration. As far as I know there is little profit motivation for it, however that does seem to be changing.

If by "public welfare" you mean programs such as AFDC and Food Stamps, I cannot refute that with any hard evidence. However, I do have great faith in the American people to take care of their neighbors in times of need. I base this on the reaction people tend to have when there is a large natural disaster.

Healthcare? Really? Are you saying that single payer is the way to go? Ask the Canadians how that is working out. Or Cuba. Or so many other places. Their rich come here because they can afford to get the very best. Private enterprise did that.

I'll give you Disease control. There is no way that private business could do that job without government-like powers.

Monetary System, I give you that one only because we are no longer on a system backed by anything but the "full faith and credit of the United States of America". AKA our money is worthless paper and scrap metal without the government. Wasn't always that way, but it is now.

I knew healthcare would draw your attention

I do not consider our insurance centered healthcare system to be efficient. Insurance is nothing but a middle man. They add nothing to your healthcare. They pool your money and decide who will be covered for what
Doctors spend too much on billing and negotiating with insurance companies. That is far from efficient

And now they spend too much time making sure they are complying with the law. Which is worse?
By the way there is a concept that has really taken off recently. It's called Concierge Health Care (I think, someting to that effect). In a nutshell how it works is a person pays a set amount to their doctor for the year. This buys them a certain amount of service, used at mutually agreed upon times. I you want more than me, you have to pay more. It is, reportedly, giving the patient-doctor relationship back to the patient and the doctor, no "middle-man" as you put it. And the best part, it's private enterprise doing it.

Concierge Care is little more than what in my industry we call a fixed fee project. My firm agrees to deliver a very precisely defined outcome for a given fee. The other type of service compensation method is "time and materials," in which we bill the client at agreed upon hourly labor rates based on the actual hours consultants spend working and the actual expenses incurred. There are pros and cons to each approach.

Overall, I think clients are better served with time and materials as well as the relationship being better managed that way. I think that because under the "fixed fee" model, the service provider will necessarily focus very closely on scope: that which is not expressly defined to be "in scope" is not eligible to be done without modifying the original contract or agreeing to an "add on" contract. Fixed fee contracts force profitability to the forefront of managing delivery and place a larger share of project risk on the service provider/firm/doctor. It also makes "legalese" critically important. When that's the case, a somewhat adversarial atmosphere results at all levels of the endeavor. T&M engagements, on the other hand, limit the proliferation of adversarial thoughts and allow for greater collaboration between the folks on the front line, both the client's personnel and the firm's; (potential) disagreements about what should and/or should not be paid stays at the senior levels of the project's management.

The exact same phenomena will occur with health care delivery performed for a fixed fee. Quite frankly, I don't think an adversarial relationship is a good thing for health care delivery. And I think that the nature of the relationship is even more critical in health care than it is in management consulting engagements, and it's potentially sea changing in consulting.

Additionally, depending on the payment agreement for Concierge Care, providers stand to realize gains above and beyond the basic sums paid for the service. One example is seen when patients pay in advance for their Concierge Care. The payment in advance gives the provider money that s/he/it can invest to earn interest even before having actually earned the money by delivering care. Now I don't think it's a bad thing, but I do think that by being given that opportunity, the care provider should offer the care at a lower rate. If s/he/it does, fine, there remains some modicum of equity in the transaction. If not, however, the provider is merely obtaining even greater compensation while doing nothing to have earned it.

Having written that, know that I have no issue with Concierge Care models and practices existing and being offered and accepted by providers and patients. I am merely pointing out the drawbacks of that delivery model. As long as there remains a choice that we (potential) patients can exercise between "fee for service" and "fixed fee," I'm fine with organizations offering the concierge model.

 

[richstacy]

Donald Trump's major talking point is that America is no longer great- so why do Conservatives believe America is no longer great?

When do Conservatives believe America stopped being great?

First of all -- do not take Donald Trump as a guide to conservative thought, he is NOT a conservative and he never has been. I don't even think he is a Republican nor do I think he used to be a Democrat. Trump is for Trump and the rest of the world be damned.

I don't think America is "no longer great." we are still a great nation, and will continue to be. But obviously not as great as we have been. For example, the American free enterprise system, capitalism, which has produced the world's largest middle class and more prosperity for more people than any other system in world history -- has historically supported about 3.5% growth per year. Obama's stifling of business has cut that to a mere 2%.

At the same time he has failed to check the excesses. For example, of the greedy, crooked bankers who took part in the sub-prime mortgage crisis, his DOJ has not indicted, prosecuted and sent to prison a single solitary one! In sharp contrast, the Reagan-Bush 41 DOJ sent over 1,000 crooked bankers responsible for the S&L crisis of the late 80s, early 90s to prison.

While China is modernizing and expanding its military we are not. it is imperative that we stay ahead in every respect.

A great country BTW, does not draw a Red line in the Syrian sand and then cut and run like a little girl when the guy (Assad) who was the object of the red line steps right over it. That encouraged not only Assad, but Putin, ISIS, Iran, China and North Korea to believe that we are weak and afraid to challenge even a doofus like Assad. All of them respect and fear strength only -- and have NO respect for weakness.

A great country does not flirt with socialism -- which has failed everywhere for a hundred years -- from the Soviet Union to Venezuela to Greece.

A great nation does not graduate less than 50% of students from high school who are not proficient in reading, writing, math or science. Even more frightening, we graduate an astonishingly tiny 12% proficient in American History.

I could go on -- but nuff said.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Donald Trump's major talking point is that America is no longer great- so why do Conservatives believe America is no longer great?

When do Conservatives believe America stopped being great?

HBO is by far , a non Conservative show. Here is something worth watching and how HBO feels about America.

The opening scene of HBO's "The Newsroom".

Sorry about the link, it has been disabled, but go to Youtube, for the libs, never mind, it is too difficult for you to do all this work.

 

[oldsoul]

Okay. I agree with your answers to questions one and two.

Regarding question three, I don't agree. I don't agree because in spite of the billions the government spends to eradicate hunger, homelessness, etc., charities have not even filled the gap needed to bring our nation to zero involuntary hunger and homelessness, or poverty if you prefer that term. If charities cannot fill the gap now, I have no rational basis for thinking they can do it absent governmental contributions seeing as doing so would require more resources from charities than they today deliver.

Out of curiosity, how are your answers one and three not incongruous?

How much more money would you be able to give to charities if your taxes where reduced? Furthermore, as a self proclaimed wealthy person, what percentage of your wealth is donated to the needy? I do not expect, nor do I want the answers to these questions, they are personal, and merely for the exercise of thinking on the topic.
That said, how much more would individuals do if they knew that there was not a government program to support those who cannot/do not support themselves. I beleive you underestimate the charity of the American people, if they where to be relieved of the burden of high taxes.

As to your "curiosity", just because I did not list the same sources of help, does not mean that I beleive the lists (in entirety) would be different.

I know very few wealthy people who said.....If my taxes are reduced, I will give all the money to charity

Didn't happen when Reagan reduced their taxes, didn't happen when Bush reduced their taxes

Exactly...and the reason, IMO, is that upon reaching ~$465K/year (in 2015) in income, the tax rates become regressive. Equally important, do you know of most folks who are not wealthy saying that? I don't.

I know that were I to pay less in taxes, I doubt my charitable giving would materially increase, even if it did increase incrementally. I know that my personal situation is such that none of my discretionary spending is going to change because I pay a bit more or a bit less in taxes.

Now if my tax rate were to change by some 20 or 30 percent, well, then my discretionary spending habits would change somewhat; however, even if that change were a decrease, I doubt I'd give tens to hundreds of thousands more to charity. On the other hand, if the change were an increase of that extent, I'd surely give less to charity. The thing is that no recent President has advocated for a tax cut or increase on that scale....two to three percent is the most I've seen, and that's not enough to change anything. One need not even be comfortable for that to be so. The simple fact is that tax cuts and increases are not life changing in nature for most taxpayers, so why they even grumble and grouse about it is beyond me?

Here is why, If we don't "grumble and grouse" over the incremental increases we will see the reverse of this gragh.

I don't know about you, but I would rather keep more of what I earn. Even if it is only a few dollars, it's mine.

Do you honestly believe that folks prior to the 1990s didn't complain about taxes? People have complained about taxes since the first tax was levied.

As an abstraction, nobody is going to say "I want to pay more money in taxes." Rational people, however, will look at the difference in a current and proposed tax and determine whether that difference is better spent by them on "whatever" or by the government on a "public good" or in attempting to achieve one or several humane outcomes for its citizens.

More importantly for this thread topic, I believe it'd be very hard to cogently and morally argue that how much any individual or group thereof must pay in taxes is a measure of a nation's greatness. Unless one if of a mind to push for a state having no government, one must accept that one will pay taxes. A better gauge by far is what a nation -- directly by the people's private spending and indirectly by them via their government -- does or does not do for and to its people, all of its people.

Um, no, I do not beleive that tax complaints started in the '90's. Are you attempting to put words in my mouth? It was a simple gragh depicting what can happen to tax rates over time. The timeframe is irrelevent to my point.

 

[oldsoul]

Other than National Defense, which most would agree is most efficiently executed by the Feds, what would you say they do most efficiently?

All infrastructure
Space exploration
Public welfare
Healthcare
Disease control
The monetary system

If by infrastructure you mean this, "Infrastructure refers to the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area,[1] including the services and facilities necessary for its economy to function.[2] It typically characterises technical structures such as roads, bridges, tunnels, water supply, sewers, electrical grids, telecommunications, and so forth, and can be defined as "the physical components of interrelated systems providing commodities and services essential to enable, sustain, or enhance societal living conditions."[3]" from wikipedia.org, then I can see your point. I would say that certain parts may, under the right conditions, be more efficiently done by private business. Of course, for uniformity and continuity they would have to meet government specs, but I think most, if not all could be done efficiently by private companies. In fact, last I checked, my cable company (telecommunications) is private, some electric companies are private, and I understand there is a test project in Texas concerning the viability of private companies operating roads.

I'll give you space exploration. As far as I know there is little profit motivation for it, however that does seem to be changing.

If by "public welfare" you mean programs such as AFDC and Food Stamps, I cannot refute that with any hard evidence. However, I do have great faith in the American people to take care of their neighbors in times of need. I base this on the reaction people tend to have when there is a large natural disaster.

Healthcare? Really? Are you saying that single payer is the way to go? Ask the Canadians how that is working out. Or Cuba. Or so many other places. Their rich come here because they can afford to get the very best. Private enterprise did that.

I'll give you Disease control. There is no way that private business could do that job without government-like powers.

Monetary System, I give you that one only because we are no longer on a system backed by anything but the "full faith and credit of the United States of America". AKA our money is worthless paper and scrap metal without the government. Wasn't always that way, but it is now.

I knew healthcare would draw your attention

I do not consider our insurance centered healthcare system to be efficient. Insurance is nothing but a middle man. They add nothing to your healthcare. They pool your money and decide who will be covered for what
Doctors spend too much on billing and negotiating with insurance companies. That is far from efficient

And now they spend too much time making sure they are complying with the law. Which is worse?
By the way there is a concept that has really taken off recently. It's called Concierge Health Care (I think, someting to that effect). In a nutshell how it works is a person pays a set amount to their doctor for the year. This buys them a certain amount of service, used at mutually agreed upon times. I you want more than me, you have to pay more. It is, reportedly, giving the patient-doctor relationship back to the patient and the doctor, no "middle-man" as you put it. And the best part, it's private enterprise doing it.

Concierge Care is little more than what in my industry we call a fixed fee project. My firm agrees to deliver a very precisely defined outcome for a given fee. The other type of service compensation method is "time and materials," in which we bill the client at agreed upon hourly labor rates based on the actual hours consultants spend working and the actual expenses incurred. There are pros and cons to each approach.

Overall, I think clients are better served with time and materials as well as the relationship being better managed that way. I think that because under the "fixed fee" model, the service provider will necessarily focus very closely on scope: that which is not expressly defined to be "in scope" is not eligible to be done without modifying the original contract or agreeing to an "add on" contract. Fixed fee contracts force profitability to the forefront of managing delivery and place a larger share of project risk on the service provider/firm/doctor. It also makes "legalese" critically important. When that's the case, a somewhat adversarial atmosphere results at all levels of the endeavor. T&M engagements, on the other hand, limit the proliferation of adversarial thoughts and allow for greater collaboration between the folks on the front line, both the client's personnel and the firm's; (potential) disagreements about what should and/or should not be paid stays at the senior levels of the project's management.

The exact same phenomena will occur with health care delivery performed for a fixed fee. Quite frankly, I don't think an adversarial relationship is a good thing for health care delivery. And I think that the nature of the relationship is even more critical in health care than it is in management consulting engagements, and it's potentially sea changing in consulting.

Additionally, depending on the payment agreement for Concierge Care, providers stand to realize gains above and beyond the basic sums paid for the service. One example is seen when patients pay in advance for their Concierge Care. The payment in advance gives the provider money that s/he/it can invest to earn interest even before having actually earned the money by delivering care. Now I don't think it's a bad thing, but I do think that by being given that opportunity, the care provider should offer the care at a lower rate. If s/he/it does, fine, there remains some modicum of equity in the transaction. If not, however, the provider is merely obtaining even greater compensation while doing nothing to have earned it.

Having written that, know that I have no issue with Concierge Care models and practices existing and being offered and accepted by providers and patients. I am merely pointing out the drawbacks of that delivery model. As long as there remains a choice that we (potential) patients can exercise between "fee for service" and "fixed fee," I'm fine with organizations offering the concierge model.

I was merely putting forth one option that the private sector has come up with as an option to insurance. The fact that you saw the need to go into such detail of the pros and cons of the two structures you did is quite...interesting.

 

[320 Years of History]

How much more money would you be able to give to charities if your taxes where reduced? Furthermore, as a self proclaimed wealthy person, what percentage of your wealth is donated to the needy? I do not expect, nor do I want the answers to these questions, they are personal, and merely for the exercise of thinking on the topic.
That said, how much more would individuals do if they knew that there was not a government program to support those who cannot/do not support themselves. I beleive you underestimate the charity of the American people, if they where to be relieved of the burden of high taxes.

As to your "curiosity", just because I did not list the same sources of help, does not mean that I beleive the lists (in entirety) would be different.

I know very few wealthy people who said.....If my taxes are reduced, I will give all the money to charity

Didn't happen when Reagan reduced their taxes, didn't happen when Bush reduced their taxes

Exactly...and the reason, IMO, is that upon reaching ~$465K/year (in 2015) in income, the tax rates become regressive. Equally important, do you know of most folks who are not wealthy saying that? I don't.

I know that were I to pay less in taxes, I doubt my charitable giving would materially increase, even if it did increase incrementally. I know that my personal situation is such that none of my discretionary spending is going to change because I pay a bit more or a bit less in taxes.

Now if my tax rate were to change by some 20 or 30 percent, well, then my discretionary spending habits would change somewhat; however, even if that change were a decrease, I doubt I'd give tens to hundreds of thousands more to charity. On the other hand, if the change were an increase of that extent, I'd surely give less to charity. The thing is that no recent President has advocated for a tax cut or increase on that scale....two to three percent is the most I've seen, and that's not enough to change anything. One need not even be comfortable for that to be so. The simple fact is that tax cuts and increases are not life changing in nature for most taxpayers, so why they even grumble and grouse about it is beyond me?

Here is why, If we don't "grumble and grouse" over the incremental increases we will see the reverse of this gragh.

I don't know about you, but I would rather keep more of what I earn. Even if it is only a few dollars, it's mine.

Do you honestly believe that folks prior to the 1990s didn't complain about taxes? People have complained about taxes since the first tax was levied.

As an abstraction, nobody is going to say "I want to pay more money in taxes." Rational people, however, will look at the difference in a current and proposed tax and determine whether that difference is better spent by them on "whatever" or by the government on a "public good" or in attempting to achieve one or several humane outcomes for its citizens.

More importantly for this thread topic, I believe it'd be very hard to cogently and morally argue that how much any individual or group thereof must pay in taxes is a measure of a nation's greatness. Unless one if of a mind to push for a state having no government, one must accept that one will pay taxes. A better gauge by far is what a nation -- directly by the people's private spending and indirectly by them via their government -- does or does not do for and to its people, all of its people.

Um, no, I do not beleive that tax complaints started in the '90's. Are you attempting to put words in my mouth? It was a simple gragh depicting what can happen to tax rates over time. The timeframe is irrelevent to my point.

Red:
No. I was not seeking to put words in your mouth. That is why I asked a question rather than claiming you said/think that.

Blue:
Okay. I agree. As the graph shows, tax rates can go and have gone up and down over time. I suspect that in the years ahead, they will do the same. When legislators begin proposing to increase or decrease them by more than ten percent at once, I may be concerned about the change in the tax rates.

Given the rate changes that have been on the table in recent years, I don't care if they get implemented or not because I know they aren't life changing, but if not implementing those small increases means people with real low-level "Maslow" needs must also do without, then by all means, implement a the increase. I can live with paying a few dollars more in taxes so others may eat and have shelter/clothing.

 

[oldsoul]

I know very few wealthy people who said.....If my taxes are reduced, I will give all the money to charity

Didn't happen when Reagan reduced their taxes, didn't happen when Bush reduced their taxes

Exactly...and the reason, IMO, is that upon reaching ~$465K/year (in 2015) in income, the tax rates become regressive. Equally important, do you know of most folks who are not wealthy saying that? I don't.

I know that were I to pay less in taxes, I doubt my charitable giving would materially increase, even if it did increase incrementally. I know that my personal situation is such that none of my discretionary spending is going to change because I pay a bit more or a bit less in taxes.

Now if my tax rate were to change by some 20 or 30 percent, well, then my discretionary spending habits would change somewhat; however, even if that change were a decrease, I doubt I'd give tens to hundreds of thousands more to charity. On the other hand, if the change were an increase of that extent, I'd surely give less to charity. The thing is that no recent President has advocated for a tax cut or increase on that scale....two to three percent is the most I've seen, and that's not enough to change anything. One need not even be comfortable for that to be so. The simple fact is that tax cuts and increases are not life changing in nature for most taxpayers, so why they even grumble and grouse about it is beyond me?

Here is why, If we don't "grumble and grouse" over the incremental increases we will see the reverse of this gragh.

I don't know about you, but I would rather keep more of what I earn. Even if it is only a few dollars, it's mine.

Do you honestly believe that folks prior to the 1990s didn't complain about taxes? People have complained about taxes since the first tax was levied.

As an abstraction, nobody is going to say "I want to pay more money in taxes." Rational people, however, will look at the difference in a current and proposed tax and determine whether that difference is better spent by them on "whatever" or by the government on a "public good" or in attempting to achieve one or several humane outcomes for its citizens.

More importantly for this thread topic, I believe it'd be very hard to cogently and morally argue that how much any individual or group thereof must pay in taxes is a measure of a nation's greatness. Unless one if of a mind to push for a state having no government, one must accept that one will pay taxes. A better gauge by far is what a nation -- directly by the people's private spending and indirectly by them via their government -- does or does not do for and to its people, all of its people.

Um, no, I do not beleive that tax complaints started in the '90's. Are you attempting to put words in my mouth? It was a simple gragh depicting what can happen to tax rates over time. The timeframe is irrelevent to my point.

Red:
No. I was not seeking to put words in your mouth. That is why I asked a question rather than claiming you said/think that.

Blue:
Okay. I agree. As the graph shows, tax rates can go and have gone up and down over time. I suspect that in the years ahead, they will do the same. When legislators begin proposing to increase or decrease them by more than ten percent at once, I may be concerned about the change in the tax rates.

Given the rate changes that have been on the table in recent years, I don't care if they get implemented or not because I know they aren't life changing, but if not implementing those small increases means people with real low-level "Maslow" needs must also do without, then by all means, implement a the increase. I can live with paying a few dollars more in taxes so others may eat and have shelter/clothing.

So, are you saying that you would rather pay someone else to decide where, how much and to whom to be charitable? I, for one, would rather make that decision for myself.

 

[320 Years of History]

Exactly...and the reason, IMO, is that upon reaching ~$465K/year (in 2015) in income, the tax rates become regressive. Equally important, do you know of most folks who are not wealthy saying that? I don't.

I know that were I to pay less in taxes, I doubt my charitable giving would materially increase, even if it did increase incrementally. I know that my personal situation is such that none of my discretionary spending is going to change because I pay a bit more or a bit less in taxes.

Now if my tax rate were to change by some 20 or 30 percent, well, then my discretionary spending habits would change somewhat; however, even if that change were a decrease, I doubt I'd give tens to hundreds of thousands more to charity. On the other hand, if the change were an increase of that extent, I'd surely give less to charity. The thing is that no recent President has advocated for a tax cut or increase on that scale....two to three percent is the most I've seen, and that's not enough to change anything. One need not even be comfortable for that to be so. The simple fact is that tax cuts and increases are not life changing in nature for most taxpayers, so why they even grumble and grouse about it is beyond me?

Here is why, If we don't "grumble and grouse" over the incremental increases we will see the reverse of this gragh.

I don't know about you, but I would rather keep more of what I earn. Even if it is only a few dollars, it's mine.

Do you honestly believe that folks prior to the 1990s didn't complain about taxes? People have complained about taxes since the first tax was levied.

As an abstraction, nobody is going to say "I want to pay more money in taxes." Rational people, however, will look at the difference in a current and proposed tax and determine whether that difference is better spent by them on "whatever" or by the government on a "public good" or in attempting to achieve one or several humane outcomes for its citizens.

More importantly for this thread topic, I believe it'd be very hard to cogently and morally argue that how much any individual or group thereof must pay in taxes is a measure of a nation's greatness. Unless one if of a mind to push for a state having no government, one must accept that one will pay taxes. A better gauge by far is what a nation -- directly by the people's private spending and indirectly by them via their government -- does or does not do for and to its people, all of its people.

Um, no, I do not beleive that tax complaints started in the '90's. Are you attempting to put words in my mouth? It was a simple gragh depicting what can happen to tax rates over time. The timeframe is irrelevent to my point.

Red:
No. I was not seeking to put words in your mouth. That is why I asked a question rather than claiming you said/think that.

Blue:
Okay. I agree. As the graph shows, tax rates can go and have gone up and down over time. I suspect that in the years ahead, they will do the same. When legislators begin proposing to increase or decrease them by more than ten percent at once, I may be concerned about the change in the tax rates.

Given the rate changes that have been on the table in recent years, I don't care if they get implemented or not because I know they aren't life changing, but if not implementing those small increases means people with real low-level "Maslow" needs must also do without, then by all means, implement a the increase. I can live with paying a few dollars more in taxes so others may eat and have shelter/clothing.

So, are you saying that you would rather pay someone else to decide where, how much and to whom to be charitable? I, for one, would rather make that decision for myself.

• I am a citizen of the United States.
• I must therefore pay taxes to the U.S. government.
• I believe that, as a nation, we are wealthy enough to ensure that nobody be homeless, unclothed or starving.
• I believe that most people in the U.S. agree with me.
• The government sees as part of its commitment to care for its citizens to implement programs that ensure nobody is homeless, unclothed or starving.
• The government must use the taxes it collects to try to accomplish that outcome.
• I have two options: allow the government to use my tax dollars to do so or attempt to do so privately.
• I and others also use personal resources to aid some individuals who are in need. That's in addition to the taxes I pay.
• In spite of the combined efforts of the government and private charitable giving, people go hungry, homeless and unclothed.
• My charitableness notwithstanding, as a practical matter, I'm fairly certain the sum I pay in taxes that then gets used for income security programs (food stamps, public housing, welfare, etc.) -- ~14% of the tax one pays -- is a sum I most likely would not instead donate outright to XYZ charities or needy individuals were I not to pay it as income tax. I'm far more likely to use that sum to buy some personal effect or a vacation or whatever. Given that, I know overall even less charity would be available for folks who need it.
• I have no desire to look around and "cherry pick" charities or individuals to whom I will be charitable with regard to the total sum of charity I have available to spend -- both the sum theoretically not paid in taxes and the sum I donate independently of taxes. The government doing that on my behalf is just fine with me.

If/when someone comes up with an approach that can reliably feel, house and clothe the needy, that is demonstrably more efficient than the government doing so, and that is scalable to the extent that the government's charitable giving programs are, by all means, I'd be happy to support legislation that directs my "income security" tax dollars to that program instead of the existing programs the government has. The thing about that is that it's not really reducing the total outlay I would make; all that'd be different is that, in theory, the money I provide would be used more effectively and efficiently. I'm all for that, but I am not aware of any such programs that meet the criteria I noted. Are you?

Remember, I see the goal as "leave no citizen homeless, hungry and unclothed," not as "spend less of my hard earned dollars to make that happen." What do you see as the "end state" goal that we should seek to achieve?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Here is why, If we don't "grumble and grouse" over the incremental increases we will see the reverse of this gragh.

I don't know about you, but I would rather keep more of what I earn. Even if it is only a few dollars, it's mine.

Do you honestly believe that folks prior to the 1990s didn't complain about taxes? People have complained about taxes since the first tax was levied.

As an abstraction, nobody is going to say "I want to pay more money in taxes." Rational people, however, will look at the difference in a current and proposed tax and determine whether that difference is better spent by them on "whatever" or by the government on a "public good" or in attempting to achieve one or several humane outcomes for its citizens.

More importantly for this thread topic, I believe it'd be very hard to cogently and morally argue that how much any individual or group thereof must pay in taxes is a measure of a nation's greatness. Unless one if of a mind to push for a state having no government, one must accept that one will pay taxes. A better gauge by far is what a nation -- directly by the people's private spending and indirectly by them via their government -- does or does not do for and to its people, all of its people.

Um, no, I do not beleive that tax complaints started in the '90's. Are you attempting to put words in my mouth? It was a simple gragh depicting what can happen to tax rates over time. The timeframe is irrelevent to my point.

Red:
No. I was not seeking to put words in your mouth. That is why I asked a question rather than claiming you said/think that.

Blue:
Okay. I agree. As the graph shows, tax rates can go and have gone up and down over time. I suspect that in the years ahead, they will do the same. When legislators begin proposing to increase or decrease them by more than ten percent at once, I may be concerned about the change in the tax rates.

Given the rate changes that have been on the table in recent years, I don't care if they get implemented or not because I know they aren't life changing, but if not implementing those small increases means people with real low-level "Maslow" needs must also do without, then by all means, implement a the increase. I can live with paying a few dollars more in taxes so others may eat and have shelter/clothing.

So, are you saying that you would rather pay someone else to decide where, how much and to whom to be charitable? I, for one, would rather make that decision for myself.

• I am a citizen of the United States.
• I must therefore pay taxes to the U.S. government.
• I believe that, as a nation, we are wealthy enough to ensure that nobody be homeless, unclothed or starving.
• I believe that most people in the U.S. agree with me.
• The government sees as part of its commitment to care for its citizens to implement programs that ensure nobody is homeless, unclothed or starving.
• The government must use the taxes it collects to try to accomplish that outcome.
• I have two options: allow the government to use my tax dollars to do so or attempt to do so privately.
• I and others also use personal resources to aid some individuals who are in need. That's in addition to the taxes I pay.
• In spite of the combined efforts of the government and private charitable giving, people go hungry, homeless and unclothed.
• My charitableness notwithstanding, as a practical matter, I'm fairly certain the sum I pay in taxes that then gets used for income security programs (food stamps, public housing, welfare, etc.) -- ~14% of the tax one pays -- is a sum I most likely would not instead donate outright to XYZ charities or needy individuals were I not to pay it as income tax. I'm far more likely to use that sum to buy some personal effect or a vacation or whatever. Given that, I know overall even less charity would be available for folks who need it.
• I have no desire to look around and "cherry pick" charities or individuals to whom I will be charitable with regard to the total sum of charity I have available to spend -- both the sum theoretically not paid in taxes and the sum I donate independently of taxes. The government doing that on my behalf is just fine with me.

If/when someone comes up with an approach that can reliably feel, house and clothe the needy, that is demonstrably more efficient than the government doing so, and that is scalable to the extent that the government's charitable giving programs are, by all means, I'd be happy to support legislation that directs my "income security" tax dollars to that program instead of the existing programs the government has. The thing about that is that it's not really reducing the total outlay I would make; all that'd be different is that, in theory, the money I provide would be used more effectively and efficiently. I'm all for that, but I am not aware of any such programs that meet the criteria I noted. Are you?

Remember, I see the goal as "leave no citizen homeless, hungry and unclothed," not as "spend less of my hard earned dollars to make that happen." What do you see as the "end state" goal that we should seek to achieve?

You are a US citizen, why should you have to pay for a lifestyle of someone who is here illegally
Everyone should pay taxes, but why is it that there is never enough taxes to satiate the over bloated government?
If someone WANTS to be homeless, why should We the People have to FORCE that person to live outside his wants?
What you believe is not the beliefs of many others, but then you must FORCE us to comply to your wishes or you call US names.
It is not the responsibility of the government to ensure people aren't homeless, unclothed or starving, but up to each individual, personal responsibility, but there are those that USE the system to get FREE stuff on the backs of others.
The government must use the taxes to PROTECT American citizens from harm whether it is from an unfriendly nation or illegal criminals who cross the border.
Just because you have two options doesn't make you an expert.
If you feel charitable, then give what you want to charity or some person down on there luck, I did until all the taxes of Der Fuhrer made it harder for me to give. But election have consequences, and I tell all those that come to me for a hand out, and I tell them "Obama has over 7 million dollars and I don't, go see him for change".
Liberal compassion is all about the "Today" so give a person a fish and he eats for the day.
Conservative compassion is about "Today and Tomorrow" teach a man to fish and he eats for ever.
Obamavilles are popping up all over America, because liberals believe in equality. Everyone will be equally poor and equally miserable, except the liberal elite.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Do you honestly believe that folks prior to the 1990s didn't complain about taxes? People have complained about taxes since the first tax was levied.

As an abstraction, nobody is going to say "I want to pay more money in taxes." Rational people, however, will look at the difference in a current and proposed tax and determine whether that difference is better spent by them on "whatever" or by the government on a "public good" or in attempting to achieve one or several humane outcomes for its citizens.

More importantly for this thread topic, I believe it'd be very hard to cogently and morally argue that how much any individual or group thereof must pay in taxes is a measure of a nation's greatness. Unless one if of a mind to push for a state having no government, one must accept that one will pay taxes. A better gauge by far is what a nation -- directly by the people's private spending and indirectly by them via their government -- does or does not do for and to its people, all of its people.

Um, no, I do not beleive that tax complaints started in the '90's. Are you attempting to put words in my mouth? It was a simple gragh depicting what can happen to tax rates over time. The timeframe is irrelevent to my point.

Red:
No. I was not seeking to put words in your mouth. That is why I asked a question rather than claiming you said/think that.

Blue:
Okay. I agree. As the graph shows, tax rates can go and have gone up and down over time. I suspect that in the years ahead, they will do the same. When legislators begin proposing to increase or decrease them by more than ten percent at once, I may be concerned about the change in the tax rates.

Given the rate changes that have been on the table in recent years, I don't care if they get implemented or not because I know they aren't life changing, but if not implementing those small increases means people with real low-level "Maslow" needs must also do without, then by all means, implement a the increase. I can live with paying a few dollars more in taxes so others may eat and have shelter/clothing.

So, are you saying that you would rather pay someone else to decide where, how much and to whom to be charitable? I, for one, would rather make that decision for myself.

• I am a citizen of the United States.
• I must therefore pay taxes to the U.S. government.
• I believe that, as a nation, we are wealthy enough to ensure that nobody be homeless, unclothed or starving.
• I believe that most people in the U.S. agree with me.
• The government sees as part of its commitment to care for its citizens to implement programs that ensure nobody is homeless, unclothed or starving.
• The government must use the taxes it collects to try to accomplish that outcome.
• I have two options: allow the government to use my tax dollars to do so or attempt to do so privately.
• I and others also use personal resources to aid some individuals who are in need. That's in addition to the taxes I pay.
• In spite of the combined efforts of the government and private charitable giving, people go hungry, homeless and unclothed.
• My charitableness notwithstanding, as a practical matter, I'm fairly certain the sum I pay in taxes that then gets used for income security programs (food stamps, public housing, welfare, etc.) -- ~14% of the tax one pays -- is a sum I most likely would not instead donate outright to XYZ charities or needy individuals were I not to pay it as income tax. I'm far more likely to use that sum to buy some personal effect or a vacation or whatever. Given that, I know overall even less charity would be available for folks who need it.
• I have no desire to look around and "cherry pick" charities or individuals to whom I will be charitable with regard to the total sum of charity I have available to spend -- both the sum theoretically not paid in taxes and the sum I donate independently of taxes. The government doing that on my behalf is just fine with me.

If/when someone comes up with an approach that can reliably feel, house and clothe the needy, that is demonstrably more efficient than the government doing so, and that is scalable to the extent that the government's charitable giving programs are, by all means, I'd be happy to support legislation that directs my "income security" tax dollars to that program instead of the existing programs the government has. The thing about that is that it's not really reducing the total outlay I would make; all that'd be different is that, in theory, the money I provide would be used more effectively and efficiently. I'm all for that, but I am not aware of any such programs that meet the criteria I noted. Are you?

Remember, I see the goal as "leave no citizen homeless, hungry and unclothed," not as "spend less of my hard earned dollars to make that happen." What do you see as the "end state" goal that we should seek to achieve?

You are a US citizen, why should you have to pay for a lifestyle of someone who is here illegally
Everyone should pay taxes, but why is it that there is never enough taxes to satiate the over bloated government?
If someone WANTS to be homeless, why should We the People have to FORCE that person to live outside his wants?
What you believe is not the beliefs of many others, but then you must FORCE us to comply to your wishes or you call US names.
It is not the responsibility of the government to ensure people aren't homeless, unclothed or starving, but up to each individual, personal responsibility, but there are those that USE the system to get FREE stuff on the backs of others.
The government must use the taxes to PROTECT American citizens from harm whether it is from an unfriendly nation or illegal criminals who cross the border.
Just because you have two options doesn't make you an expert.
If you feel charitable, then give what you want to charity or some person down on there luck, I did until all the taxes of Der Fuhrer made it harder for me to give. But election have consequences, and I tell all those that come to me for a hand out, and I tell them "Obama has over 7 million dollars and I don't, go see him for change".
Liberal compassion is all about the "Today" so give a person a fish and he eats for the day.
Conservative compassion is about "Today and Tomorrow" teach a man to fish and he eats for ever.
Obamavilles are popping up all over America, because liberals believe in equality. Everyone will be equally poor and equally miserable, except the liberal elite.

View attachment 63851

Rightwinger thinks this post is funny. Everytime I see a liberal laugh at my post, this is what it reminds me of.
Lets put up a video of a liberal laughing at the TRUTH.