Paying the bills

[Occhidiangela]

A slippery slope that leads all the way to stinky cheeses and bad driving?

-Jester

That leads to rioting in the streets when liberals(socialists), and their clients, don't get their way in an election.

Occhi

[Jester]

That leads to rioting in the streets when liberals(socialists), and their clients, don't get their way in an election.

Occhi

Oh, yeah, that's really scary right there. Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Sarkozy is loathed by a large segment of the population. No, it must be "socialists" mobilizing their "clients."

Practically communism already.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Oh, yeah, that's really scary right there. Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Sarkozy is loathed by a large segment of the population. No, it must be "socialists" mobilizing their "clients."

Practically communism already.

-Jester

I see.

You are now playing the apologist for a form of governance wherein if you don't win an election, you have the right to riot. I was under the impression that the ideal to be achieved was to hold the elections, and if the other party wins this one, you redouble your own efforts, if on the losing side, to win the next one. I note that the nation where you live works under that rubric.

How odd, that you now seem to prefer the threat of violence as a trump to an election.

Anarchy much?

No, not communism. Anarchy as a prelude to a replay of the Terror? Not sure, but the real estate is the same.

Royal was running on a socialist ticket. Her NOT winning was root cause of the riots, so the riots are rooted in her support in a segment of the population. Since I am not convinced that the garden variety French Socialist was a rioter, I presume it was a client: a subest of the electorate who the socialists pandered to in an effort to gain votes.

The suspiscion that something more nefarious is at work I won't comment on without further info.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

I see.

You are now playing the apologist for a form of governance wherein if you don't win an election, you have the right to riot. I was under the impression that the ideal to be achieved was to hold the elections, and if the other party wins this one, you redouble your own efforts, if on the losing side, to win the next one. I note that the nation where you live works under that rubric.

How odd, that you now seem to prefer the threat of violence as a trump to an election.

Anarchy much?

No, not communism. Anarchy as a prelude to a replay of the Terror? Not sure, but the real estate is the same.

Royal was running on a socialist ticket. Her NOT winning was root cause of the riots, so the riots are rooted in her support in a segment of the population. Since I am not convinced that the garden variety French Socialist was a rioter, I presume it was a client: a subest of the electorate who the socialists pandered to in an effort to gain votes.

The suspiscion that something more nefarious is at work I won't comment on without further info.

Occhi

Probably not communism outright, more likely some twisted form of fascism. Royal's rioters bear more resemblance to "Brown Shirts" than anything I've seen in Europe since WWII. Never mind that Royal was defeated by a large margin. I had heard also that she had incited her followers to riot. It is not a coincidence that Nazism was a form of National Socialism where the nanny State knows best how to run your affairs. It is heartening to me that perhaps there are a slight majority in France that understand that economic liberalization is preferable to State control of capital. I would just point out that France is the poster child of the Socialist agenda, so I look at their failing economy and social woes as the fruits of socialism.

France has been on the verge if not in full out civil war for over a year. No one mentions much here in the US media that over 5,000 police officers have been injured in rioting in France in the past year. But, hey! What's that Baghdad body count up to today? I could find that out in a heartbeat. Frankly, in a geopolitical sense, I'm more concerned about the failure of a European democracy and ally than I am about some oil rich oasis on the fertile crescent.

[Occhidiangela]

Sarkozy is hardly the next shining light of good governance, but I agree with the observation on Royal's loose talk: not sure if she was inciting riot, or just being snooty in her back and forth with Sarkozy. The debate the two had was hardly cordial in tone.

Frankly, in a geopolitical sense, I'm more concerned about the failure of a European democracy and ally than I am about some oil rich oasis on the fertile crescent.

Let's get the pending geography straight: Eurabian, not European, democracy, unless someone wakes up. Sarkozy as a leader for Europe to reverse the self inflicted cultural wounds?

I don't see it.

Occhi

[Jester]

We've now acheived a quasi-mystical super-Godwin trifecta of Anarchy, Communism and Nazism.

I think that signals that the time to let this die flew by a long time ago.

-Jester

[Swiss Mercenary]

But... I don't. I agree we need a police force and roads. I believe I've expressed before that my views are that those who use the thing should pay for it.

So really, it's not the "By force" that's your problem with government.

Rather, it's that what's taken doesn't get spread around evenly.

As for the slippery slope... Let's look at France's socialism and its severe back lash, shall we? Great post on Soviet ideological warfare

Which is clearly a unique attribute of socialists.

Or rather, it's an attribute of the lazy, poor, uneducated bums to which they spent some time pandering to.

1st opening up the definition of marriage... and 2nd euthanasia. Now, I'm not taking a stand on either of these Netherlands socialist items, but using them to illustrate what I mean by a socialist slippery slope. We've hashed out out views on both topics in the past.

Somehow, I think you might find it difficult to link either one with socialism. You know. The economic system.

You might have a better chance at linking it with cultural changes and the vile slippery slope that civil rights brought about. :rolleyes:

Here is a local example from my State. We went along with the "ideological" Federal program labeled "State Children's Health Insurance Program". Which politician could ever be against health care for low income children? The reality is that in Minnesota, 87% of the participants in the program are adults. We have 5 State/Federal health insurance programs in Minnesota. The legislature is trying to pass legislation this session that would extend State low income health coverage to some households that make up to $100K in income.

Trying to pass legislature? You get crackpots every day, all over the world, 'trying' to pass legislature. Most of them fail.

[Occhidiangela]

We've now acheived a quasi-mystical super-Godwin trifecta of Anarchy, Communism and Nazism.

I think that signals that the time to let this die flew by a long time ago.

-Jester

I don't think this was a Godwin.

How did Nazism creep into this, anyway?

Well, two common strains of political motivation are nationalism, and socialism, or socialist at least modes of varying degree. It is not too hard to combine the two into a platform. That does not make someone who espouses both some nationalist themes and some socialist themes into a bona fide replica of Adolf's brand of National Socialism, any more than promoting some communist themes makes Tito a replica of Stalin.

There are shades of everything here.

Anyhoo, I have rather derailed the thread, so perhaps the wood chipper out back is where this should now go.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

So really, it's not the "By force" that's your problem with government.

Well, actually, if you don't pay your property taxes they don't kick you out of your house. First, they've made a sweet deal with banks now so that your property taxes are escrowed into your mortgage payments. Second, if you have no mortgage, the only power local government can impose is to place a lien on your property for the amount you owe the government. So, you'd get no permits, and before you can sell you property the liens must be removed.

Rather, it's that what's taken doesn't get spread around evenly.

Thus satisfying the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Remember that "Equality" part of the French revolutions battle cry? So, yes, I believe that you do to/for one, you do to/for all.

Which is clearly a unique attribute of socialists. Or rather, it's an attribute of the lazy, poor, uneducated bums to which they spent some time pandering to.

I agree that all sides are dirty. The tactics of the misinformation and disinformation are rampant in global politics. Exhibit 1: Global warming. No one is interested in finding the truth, but we are told Kyoto is reasonable and it is worth destroying the global economy to attempt to lower global temperatures some fraction of a degree Celsius. Another ignored truth: Carbon Dioxide needs to grow exponentially to have increased influence in climate change. See this scientific explanation to understand how the climate really works. There is no "Gorean" runaway climate model that results in 10 meter ocean level rise. The reality I can see here is that the people selling that soap want to control your life.

Somehow, I think you might find it difficult to link either one with socialism. You know. The economic system.

Technically, I agree. In the my area, socialism as an economic system is intrinsically linked to progressive social liberalism. Whereas, I tend to be an economic libertarian, and social moderate. I don't like the government involved in shaping social behavior in any way towards the libertine or the conservative. I believe they have no business in shaping social mores. We rely on other institutions within our society for shaping mores, and preserving those quaint ideas like "marriage" and "family".

You might have a better chance at linking it with cultural changes and the vile slippery slope that civil rights brought about. :rolleyes:

Again, I instinctively link socialists with progressives here in my area. We've discussed before the slippery slope of government trying to define appropriate "civil unions" and "marriage", which is not a civil rights issue once you start getting into the many to many relationships. I believe it is a legal issue with civil unions, and a church issue with the definition of marriage.

The slippery slope fallacy would be... Why not just declare that everyone is married to everyone else in one big cosmic family and jump to the end game now? By the way, don't you mess up our community property! What's yours is mine! Oh, and our wife would like you to watch our kids tonight. Ok? We both know it could not get to that ridiculous point without blood in the streets. Um, why are Islamists upset with the West again? BTW, not your answer, but their answer. Read what the jihadists are telling their devotees.

What I am seeing, and exemplified by European countries like Netherlands and France, is the quagmire of political correctness and a progressive social agenda, coupled with an increasingly anti-productive socialist economic system. Is that not correct? So, then, how's that going for France then? Maybe those 45% of unhappy Muslims in the Netherlands would also be rioting if they formed a larger minority.

Trying to pass legislature? You get crackpots every day, all over the world, 'trying' to pass legislature. Most of them fail.

Yeah, unfortunately the crackpots are in the majority here. The governor will veto it, and then perhaps there are enough sensible people left in our government to sustain it.

[kandrathe]

I don't think this was a Godwin.

How did Nazism creep into this, anyway?

Well, two common strains of political motivation are nationalism, and socialism, or socialist at least modes of varying degree. It is not too hard to combine the two into a platform. That does not make someone who espouses both some nationalist themes and some socialist themes into a bona fide replica of Adolf's brand of National Socialism, any more than promoting some communist themes makes Tito a replica of Stalin.

There are shades of everything here.

Anyhoo, I have rather derailed the thread, so perhaps the wood chipper out back is where this should now go.

Occhi

Since I've been sending the thread flying off in 10 directions, let me see if I can re-rail... :) Occhi, you caught the gist of my post, btw. We were forecasting political futures for failed states. Not a science. Unfortunately, the net result in most of them is tyranny. Is Sarkozy a cure, probably not. But as a choice between evils, any damned devil will do. It's sad to watch France unravel in slow motion though, with so many people clueless as to why it is happening or how to fix it.

Canada's actions on not deporting de-sponsored aliens smacks of the same politically correct progressive agenda I have been pointing at in Europe. Therefore, it seems unjust to burden the sponsor who tries to do the right thing, with the social assistance which is only available due to the generosity of Canada's social welfare system. However did my impoverished Swedish immigrant ancestors ever make it back in the 1860's without FDR's "The Great Society"? If Canada believes a de-sponsored alien is worth the investment to keep in the country, then Canada should pay for it rather than the individual who has already voted for deportation. Given enough time, even Canada could make itself into the mess we are seeing in Europe today.

[Swiss Mercenary]

Equality

Means something other then you think it does. It doesn't mean that a convict has the same rights as a free man, and it doesn't mean that someone with a multi-million yaht should be taxed as much as a single working mom, trying to make ends meet.

What it means is that if that single working mom were to wake up tomorrow with a 6-digit paycheck, and the CEO were to be in rags, then she would be paying as many taxes as he used to, and the same goes for him.

Well, actually, if you don't pay your property taxes they don't kick you out of your house.

They'll just cut power, water, gas, and won't let you lift a finger without a fine.

I don't like the government involved in shaping social behavior in any way towards the libertine or the conservative. I believe they have no business in shaping social mores. We rely on other institutions within our society for shaping mores, and preserving those quaint ideas like "marriage" and "family".

Yet, social behaviour and government policy can hardly be seperated when it comes to the legal status of marriages, euthenesia, and the lot. It is as much as stakeholder in that arena as anyone else.

Again, I instinctively link socialists with progressives here in my area.

Yet the two are not the same, if you want to debate them. If you don't like progressivism, attack it. If you don't like socialism, attack it. Just don't attack progressivists for being socialists, and socialists for being progressivists.

I believe it is a legal issue with civil unions, and a church issue with the definition of marriage.

So do I.

quagmire of political correctness and a progressive social agenda, coupled with an increasingly anti-productive socialist economic system. Is that not correct?

Sounds about right. Needs a shakeup. Is Sarkozy a good choice for that? I could think of better. Well, maybe I couldn't, but that's beside the point.

Either way, none of that means that any single aspect of what you've outlined is a complete failure. I don't believe the baby has to be thrown out of the bathwater, to stop with the Children's Healthcare Insurance For Adults bills.

[kandrathe]

Means something other then you think it does. It doesn't mean that a convict has the same rights as a free man, and it doesn't mean that someone with a multi-million yacht should be taxed as much as a single working mom, trying to make ends meet.

What it means is that if that single working mom were to wake up tomorrow with a 6-digit paycheck, and the CEO were to be in rags, then she would be paying as many taxes as he used to, and the same goes for him.

Equality would be that the multi-million yacht would be taxed at the same rate as the single working mom's Astro van. The convict has violated his social contract with the government and thus must suffer the consequences including a lifetime of restrictions on rights, however it may be unfair still by the Equal protection clause to treat him differently than the non-convict in matters that are not related to his conviction. For example, it has been upheld that convicted Felons can be denied their 2nd Amendment rights for gun ownership even when their conviction has nothing to do with violent crime. Such as the sad case of Thomas Lamar Bean, who is caught in a legal limbo. But, it would a violation to prohibit convicts from owning property.

They'll just cut power, water, gas, and won't let you lift a finger without a fine.

Not here. Loss of utilities means death, so there is a law which prevents utilities to ever deny service. So, if you don't pay your gas, or electric bill the State covers it. I have my own well, as do 90% of the people in my community. It is not against the law to not pay taxes. It is against the law to not file your tax returns, and to ignore the government. As long as you follow the proper process they cannot do anything to you, as far as I know.

[Jester]

Equality would be that the multi-million yacht would be taxed at the same rate as the single working mom's Astro van.

So you keep saying. And yet, providing no better argument as to why this constitutes the "real" equality and the other does not, other than reiteration. To me, this looks like treating dollars equally, not people equitably.

It is not against the law to not pay taxes. It is against the law to not file your tax returns, and to ignore the government. As long as you follow the proper process they cannot do anything to you, as far as I know.

Are you referring specifically to your state here? Or to property taxes? Because if Wikipedia is not misleading me, the following is law in the United States, Internal Revenue Code section 7201:

Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

Which, if I have my reading glasses on straight, means that intentional failure to pay taxes imposed by the government is a felony.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

So you keep saying. And yet, providing no better argument as to why this constitutes the "real" equality and the other does not, other than reiteration. To me, this looks like treating dollars equally, not people equitably.

I keep reiterating because it seems so simple to me. If people are taxed, they should be treated equally. Instead the government tries to figure out if you belong in a special class that gets to pay more, or gets to pay less, or gets to pay zero.

Example: Person A works if they want, has zero debt, $100 million in assets tied up in holdings and their personal accountant arranges that their income from capital gains never exceeds $50,000 a year. Many of this persons costs are tax deductible, including their accountant. Person B works in a salaried position 50 to 60 hours per week, has $300,000 in debt including their house, but earns $100,000 per year. Person C is a capable adult and chooses not to work at all, enrolls in every government hand out possible. Who pays the highest taxes?

Are you referring specifically to your state here? Or to property taxes? Because if Wikipedia is not misleading me, the following is law in the United States, Internal Revenue Code section 7201: Which, if I have my reading glasses on straight, means that intentional failure to pay taxes imposed by the government is a felony.

You do need to work with the government and do what they tell you. They actually often do not require you to pay your taxes. This works particularly well if you earn no income. Explore just how much of your assets and income you can have tied up in a Limited Liability Corporation.

Oh, BTW, another example for the slippery slope list: Our state is poised to pass a Statewide smoking ban. I hate cigarette smoke, but I hate tyranny worse.

[Jester]

I keep reiterating because it seems so simple to me. If people are taxed, they should be treated equally. Instead the government tries to figure out if you belong in a special class that gets to pay more, or gets to pay less, or gets to pay zero.

The only way out of this is a poll tax, not a flat tax. That's treating everyone equally, isn't it? Or is that a flat tax? Or a progressive tax that's equal for all people, given similar incomes?

That it seems "simple" to you just means you're assuming your conclusions. An argument will be required to be convincing on this point, no matter how much you prefer to invoke "class", and presumably the resultant warfare.

Person A works if they want, has zero debt, $100 million in assets tied up in holdings and their personal accountant arranges that their income from capital gains never exceeds $50,000 a year. Many of this persons costs are tax deductible, including their accountant. Person B works in a salaried position 50 to 60 hours per week, has $300,000 in debt including their house, but earns $100,000 per year. Person C is a capable adult and chooses not to work at all, enrolls in every government hand out possible. Who pays the highest taxes?

What does this prove? The question is: Why is your notion of taxation more fundamentally "fair"? That is not an answer to that question.

You do need to work with the government and do what they tell you. They actually often do not require you to pay your taxes. This works particularly well if you earn no income. Explore just how much of your assets and income you can have tied up in a Limited Liability Corporation.

Okay, but that totally contradicts what you said earlier. If the government tells you to pay your taxes, you have to pay your taxes. How does that square with your earlier statement?

The rest of that, about not earning an income and whatnot, is just a giant red herring, as obviously you don't owe taxes the government hasn't asked you for.

Oh, BTW, another example for the slippery slope list: Our state is poised to pass a Statewide smoking ban. I hate cigarette smoke, but I hate tyranny worse.

Could there perhaps be just one of these threads that doesn't turn into the entire laundry list all at once? We've hit immigration, taxation (and its legality), global warming, smoking bans, the deterioration of France into socialism, Nazism, welfare bums, and just about everything in between. Is there a topic we could stick to, please?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

That it seems "simple" to you just means you're assuming your conclusions. An argument will be required to be convincing on this point, no matter how much you prefer to invoke "class", and presumably the resultant warfare.

Now I feel you are just baiting me. Ok, substitute the word "group" for "class". Who's talking about class warfare? Who doesn't assume their conclusions are correct? To answer, "Why is my notion of taxation more fundamentally "fair"?"... I gave you three scenario's of people, A, B, and C. The third obviously contributes nothing, but reaps most benefit in relation to effort. The second contributes the most in terms of productivity, and the third ostensibly indirectly contributes through the use of capital. Just as wages are the cost of labor, profits are the cost of capital. Progressive taxation, and especially when you are taxing productivity (either of labor or capital), is a redistribution of wealth from those who contribute to those who do not. Sometimes those non-contributors cannot help it because they are old, or infirm, or too young. Are these people entitled to their share of the pie? I would say no. Unless they first have a need for it, and second have spent the time contributing to society already, or in the case of the young, we are betting that they will contribute to the society. But, you and I both agree they SHOULD also get a slice of the pie because we are not a barbaric society which allows its old, infirm and young to die in the streets. By EXAMPLE, I showed you the excess in one Federal program SCHIP, a program designed for children, that has 85% adult participation in my State. Of those 85%, the larger portion of those ADULTS have no children. Why are they in this program? The answer is the politics of socialism, the politics of progressivism, the politics of control of wealth, and the politics of entitlement. When my State taxes me to the point of having a surplus, and then taxes me more it is obvious the politicians believe it is their money to do with as they see fit. They are driving away capital investment, they are driving away growth, and subsequently they are driving away jobs. Immigration without assimilation, a public school system that needs to teach in 80 different languages, and a progressive socialist agenda that destroys our economy is how we could make our State just like France. If the spending of taxes were fair, would I be as concerned about the unfairness of the collection of taxes? Probably not. What I see the tax money being spent on are building multiple billion dollar sports stadiums for rich team owners, building inadequate light rail systems, pumping more lower income people into socialist programs, and enforcement of laws that remove peoples freedoms (even if that is the freedom to be stupid and smoke cigarettes).

Regarding our discussion of paying taxes. It is not a contradiction. There are so many legal procedures on requesting extensions, deferring paying taxes, negotiating settlements, and the every 7 year bankruptcy get out of most everything for free clause. Regarding the not paying taxes due to no income, you missed the last part where I mentioned the laws around becoming an LLC. I used to own a company with some friends. I was amazed when our accountant was legally able to show that we earned almost zero income both as an individuals and as a business. Is that fair to those working class people who go off and work their 40 hours? No. The rich only have to pay taxes if they want. You really don't care who pays, correct? As long as the boondoggle socialist programs get paid for, right?

The laundry list of issues are all related to the notion of a society that is more concerned with the politics of entitlement and control, rather than providing for the justice, equality, and prosperity of its citizens.

[Jester]

I don't think you are really making an argument on "fairness." You are making an argument about entitlement. Who is entitled to what? That is a different issue. Any system that does not discriminate against people for irrelevant or unchosen things is "fair," at least in a narrow sense. It is not fair to let the wealthy go without being taxed, because wealth is not necessarily chosen. It is fair to tax people based on their income, especially progressively, because you choose to make money, and your choices increase as you gain income.

If my parents die when I'm 2 months old, and leave me 100,000 dollars, am I entitled to that money? Yes, subject to relevant laws, like taxes. Is it fair that I get that money, and lil' orphan jimmy doesn't get squat from his dead parents? No, neither of us chose our fate.

Countries determine their laws, which determines legal entitlement. I like entitlement to follow fairness when possible, and like you, I want programs that can be given to people equally. I just think more of those things are a good idea than you do, and help to compensate for the natural unfairnesses of one's birth situation, health condition, natural intelligence, and other things largely beyond one's control. Education, health care, infrastructure, policing... the rich get universal health care the same as the poor, just like they get roads, police, clean water and air. I'm hardly in favour of grand socialist boondoggles, and I *certainly* do care who pays for it.

Maybe if we could find a way to tax the idle rich, we'd be set. Sadly, as you correctly point out, they have ways to escape taxation. Consumption taxes do not seem like a good solution. The rich will simply spend their money outside the country, the middle classes will take vacation junkets (I saw this in Uruguay, where high sales taxes led people to buy luxury goods in free trade areas in Paraguay), and the poorest will end up taking the brunt, as they buy the most, save the least, and have the least mobility, although well thought out exemptions could take the sting out of it. A smart tax system would have to be able to understand and compensate for all the various ways to hide money, and that is a tough job, for which consumption taxes, I think, are inadequate, and progressive income taxes are not especially bad.

Some countries have stupid laws, France being a good example. Their "socialism" is in need of a serious revamp. It is not only economically stagnating, but it is creating the very problems it purports to solve, notably high unemployment. People are not being treated fairly, because the system favours the entrenched interests over others for no good reason. Some times, the wrong people are entitled by poorly made laws. The United States is nearly as bad, as you pointed out, where accountants (decidedly employees of the wealthy) can make taxes vanish, though this is a function of your arcane tax code more than some socialist conspiracy. Canada, for instance, has a much less loopholed tax code, and much lesser problems with tax sheltering, although it is still an issue.

The rest of my intended post I junked for being snippy. We shouldn't have to take shots at each other.

One last point, though...

Who doesn't assume their conclusions are correct?

A logical argument is supposed to lead us from shared assumptions (premises), via logic, to shared conclusions. If your assumptions contain your conclusions, then what you have is an assertion. You may believe your assertion is correct, but that's not a very good reason for anyone else to join you in that belief, especially if they're criticising some part of it, or are unable to trace it back to any assumptions of their own.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Maybe if we could find a way to tax the idle rich, we'd be set. Sadly, as you correctly point out, they have ways to escape taxation. Consumption taxes do not seem like a good solution. The rich will simply spend their money outside the country, the middle classes will take vacation junkets (I saw this in Uruguay, where high sales taxes led people to buy luxury goods in free trade areas in Paraguay), and the poorest will end up taking the brunt, as they buy the most, save the least, and have the least mobility, although well thought out exemptions could take the sting out of it. A smart tax system would have to be able to understand and compensate for all the various ways to hide money, and that is a tough job, for which consumption taxes, I think, are inadequate, and progressive income taxes are not especially bad.

I need a government who guards the borders, not a government who protects me from my own stupidity. We have enough "Thou shalt not run with scissors!" laws on the books already.

A smart tax system should be very, very simple. It should generate a consistent rate regardless of the economy. It should be negligible, but ubiquitous. Most places already capture a sales tax, so why not just implement a small Federal sales tax on goods, and a higher rate on goods costing more than say $20,000? You could provide tax exceptions for farm produce and medicine. To prevent the vacation junket problem, you just need to enforce the "Do you have anything to declare?" duty taxes that are already a part of the law. Maybe I said this already... But I think the Sarkosky position of making overtime untaxed is simply brilliant. It gives a big benefit to those who work the hardest and are hourly wage earners, not salaried. It encourages people to work hard, and then rewards them for their hard work.

The answer also lies in shrinking services to only those who truly need them, and providing those services at the local level, rather than at a State or Federal level. A person who earns $100K in New York, NY is not as well off as a person who earns $50K in Birmingham, AL. Yet, the person in New York is going to contribute a larger share in taxation. Equal is fair. If the person in Alabama and New York each paid the same flat rate, that would be fair and equal. The person in New York is going to contribute a larger portion of their income to paying for things like transportation, electricity, and heating. I would also have the government in a place of helping to insure that there are adequate 501c3 non-profit organizations in place to help the poor rather than the government stepping in itself.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I've been having fun reading this discussion and find some interesting ideas coming from both you and Jester.

The answer also lies in shrinking services to only those who truly need them, . . .

This is a very idealistic statement. How does the government know "those who truly need them"? Only by doing a careful, and expensive, investigation. So the money is wasted in a different way. Now, consider, most of the people who are on some form of welfare actually 'need' it. So most of those proposed investigations would be a waste of money. What's the trade off? Is more money wasted by doing useless investigations or by paying benefits to the few people who get them by fraud? I'm not familar with the welfare systems, so cannot comment. But I am familiar with government, especially defense, contracts. And in the case of those contracts, thanks largely to politically motivated crap like the Golden Fleece Awards, much more is wasted preventing waste than would be wasted by taking a more reasonable attitude.

To put it in terms of commerce: if a business loses $10k a year to shoplifting, it can afford to spend some for measures (such as magnetic tags and detectors at doors) to lower the loss. It cannot reasonably hire full time security people since the cost would be much greater than the potential savings. I fear that the investigation of "those who truly need them" would be analagous, for the government, to the businessman establishing a security division.

And therein lies the charm of the debate. The principles might be clear, but the applications to the morass of a real society are anything but.

Thanks, to both of you, for a good read.

--Pete

[Greyce]

However did my impoverished Swedish immigrant ancestors ever make it back in the 1860's without FDR's "The Great Society"?

Sorry to perform thread necromancery, but I believe you're referring to LBJ's "Great Society" program (Yay for Wikipedia!) The social program of FDR's reign was known as the "New Deal" (descended from Teddy's "Square Deal") - More Wiki!