# Do you really think high taxes is the answer?



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

And lets have an honest discussion without mentioning blue or red thingies. 

ExitCalifornia.org | California Relocation Program


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)




----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

My opinion first. I believe we need to pay monies for certain goods and services. I know it cost a lot too. What I dont believe is that we have no idea where our money goes at all. I think there needs to be an audit every year or even every quarter of our tax dollars at work.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

County, City, district, state and Federal in case that wasnt evident.


----------



## poppysfarm (Apr 10, 2009)

No!


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

poppysfarm said:


> No!


Very eloquent and well said . Thanks for replying.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

Well, first you have to define the question?

obviously we all will say no to a generic, “do you want higher taxes?”

tgere are services that protect citizens, and in my opinion, contrary to most I guess, I think some of these could be increased, need to be.

there are services the govt provides that is so much more efficient and fair than leaving it to private business, that is good. They need to keep up with inflation so taxes need to keep up, inflation should also increase taxes equally but it doesn't always cover.

there is a lot of regulation that would keep our democratic Republic more fair for each citizen, those might have been weakened a lot the last 40 years, I think we could use a little more here. I am careful on this, we need fairness regulations, not the goofy regulations where the govt basically takes over a business. We need less govt, more fair footing for everyone, this is a simple low key govt not the crap we see today.

then, there is so very much goofball, needless, wasted spending by the govt, they could drastically slash spending in these areas.

and so, in my perfect world we would have less taxes, but more would be spent in some areas?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

rambler said:


> Well, first you have to define the question?
> 
> obviously we all will say no to a generic, “do you want higher taxes?”
> 
> ...


But how do you know which areas really need more taxes if you cant see a balance sheet? Do we just take their word for it like we have for 250 years?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

We don’t have a revenue problem. We have an overspending problem! Higher taxes only gives them more borrowing power!


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

What was the question?


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Govt Economics in 25 words or less--

Everybody knows that an economy is kept healthy by keeping money in circulation. Goods & services are provided to those who pay money. The question is how do they get the money to buy?

Keynes thought the the govt should raise taxes and use the money for programs that provided jobs and bought goods & services for distribution to the taxpayers (and non-taxpayers).

Milton Friedman thought the govt should lower taxes, leaving more money in the hands of consumers who would then buy goods & services on a free market.

Both systems can work. We have empirical evidence ( real- life experience) that Friedman's works much better....He single handedly got Chile's failed economy back to health in the 70s, and we can see here how BOs Keynesian produced an economy little better than stagnant for 8 yrs, while Trump's low tax/less regulation plan produced a miracle recovery in 2 yrs.

Why the difference?...Well, let me ask you this-- If you go to a used car lot and tell the salesman exactly how much money you want to spend on a car, how good a deal do you think you'll get?....When the govt is doing the buying, prices sky-rocket because they announce how much money is going to be spent. This is how we go those $600 hammers & toilet seats and why pharm prices have tripled since BO-Care went into effect....

...and regs of course are deleterious....Eg- 10 yrs ago, a NG water heater cost $125. With just the inflation rate to contend with, it should cost $200 today, but thanks to EPA regs, you can't touch it for less than $600....or replacing a $200 carburetor on a car with a $2000 fuel injection system just to meet EPA regs that have no real on the environment.

I think we should do it this way-- Everybody should determine their tax burden like we do now-- it turns out be ~25% of income...But then Congress should pass a Bill that determines programs, but not costs....Then each taxpayer should decide what percentage of his taxes will go to which programs and the programs will have to match their expenditures to the money that comes in...That way the Right Wing Nuts don't have to pay for govt abortions and the Left Wing Nuts don't have to pay for police or the military. etc etc....and none of us will have to pay the salaries of those good-for-nothing Congressmen.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

I can make an argument for higher taxes in 2 cases:

I think there should be a tax on automation. If a company buys AI, a machine, or a technology that allows them to produce at the same or higher level with a fewer number of employees, the company should pay a yearly tax based on how many employees have been displaced. It needs to be in the sweet spot where it still encourages the development of automation and the implementation of automation, but raises substantial money to cover extended unemployment, health care, social security, retraining, relocation if necessary, etc.
Companies that offshore US jobs should pay a tax similar to above.
We are moving toward the point where automation will displace a huge segment of the American workforce. We already see this in some multinational companies and their owners making billions at the expense of the American worker. Even many of the big money guys on Wall Street are going to find themselves unemployed as AI takes over their jobs.

The government has to find a source of revenue to pay for services for all these future unemployed people.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

You seem to be making an argument for punishing businesses that streamline or improve efficiency, however that method is.
You just turned a tax into a penalty.


----------



## brosil (Dec 15, 2003)

Governments only collect about 20% of income no matter what they try. Raise the taxes beyond that and people will aggressively cheat or simply not work anymore than they have to. That's why slavery was a failed economic system even before the Civil War.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

My objection is not so much as how much taxes we pay, but how the money is spent. Here is a short list in no particular order

Iraq, and Afghanistan were bad investments.

Letting the insurance companies write our health care laws was bad policy.

It is bad policy when able bodied people are paid to stay out of the work force.

Investing tax dollars in failed businesses like Solyndra is crony capitalism. 

It is bad policy to drive the cost of higher education out of reach.

It is bad policy to spend money we don't have and borrow from other countries. 

It is bad for our country for the Federal government to control schools. 

It is bad to use tax money to write and enforce overregulation.

It is bad policy to provide housing and assistance to those that cross the border illegally.

It is bad policy to write laws that incarcerate such a high percentage of our population. 

It is bad policy to take so much out of my paycheck, and give such a poor ROI in my retirement.

It is bad policy to offer single mother assistance in a way that discourages marriage to the father. 


I could go on all day


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

A government cannot tax their citizens into prosperity.

No one can operate a business with negative cash flow, except a government.

There is no benefit in raising taxes on the citizens when the government can create money from thin air.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> I can make an argument for higher taxes in 2 cases:
> 
> I think there should be a tax on automation. If a company buys AI, a machine, or a technology that allows them to produce at the same or higher level with a fewer number of employees, the company should pay a yearly tax based on how many employees have been displaced. It needs to be in the sweet spot where it still encourages the development of automation and the implementation of automation, but raises substantial money to cover extended unemployment, health care, social security, retraining, relocation if necessary, etc.
> Companies that offshore US jobs should pay a tax similar to above.
> ...


Sounds like you will own nothing, but be happy


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

If a percentage of the money circulating 10 years ago, today or 10 years in the future will not cover the desired services then we need to realize that perhaps the problem is not the percentage. The problem is not enough money is being circulated to tax and we are trying to provide to many and to fancy of services. 

The percentage of the income from a average earning worker that used to buy a average car, house, or a month of families needs, no longer will do so. Seems their is a imbalance between wages and cost of products. Also people are expecting fancier products as a basic need. Heat and serve meals and a microwave instead of raw ingredients and a stove. The bells and whistles on vehicles that have little to do with providing basic transportation. Fancy smart phones instead of a basic functioning device. 

It’s easier to increase the percentage of the money being removed than it is for government to be sure that the economy is functioning in a manner that provides enough money to tax at the old percentage and that we are providing what is needed instead of what is wanted.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

Just think for a second if the United States kept our money IN the United States. Paying other counties to behave the way our government wants is too expensive. Funny to me anyway and not really on topic....my first vote at 18 was for Nixon and thinking this past election is my last...Trump....and both got impeached. My income is small and I count every dime. I know what I can and cant have. As costs go up something has to be cut. At a point you find you are not living but surviving. I dont want to believe socialism is the answer. But I do believe the money even the poorest people s needs to be handled better by the government state federal local. Perhaps an insurrection- civil war will keep our money in the united states. Strange how BML protesters got bailed out of jail while government protesters did not. Just random covidbrain thoughts.


----------



## georger (Sep 15, 2003)

Smaller government. Less taxes.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

We do not need higher taxes!

We need to stop supporting the rest of the world and quit making laws/rules that create higher spending in the US.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

georger said:


> *Smaller government. Less taxes.*


It could not be said better than that

The closer the government is to the governed the better and more accountable the government will be. Moving our local dollars to a bloated central planning body is just dumb


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I have said many times that the greatest product produced by the US is welfare babies. Apparently we are producing so few that we have to pay to have them imported.

Higher taxes never did anything except encourage tax spenders to spend more money.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

mreynolds said:


> And lets have an honest discussion without mentioning blue or red thingies.
> 
> ExitCalifornia.org | California Relocation Program


There are numerous sites like the above, ie escapeillinois, leavingnewyork, etc. 
How does one centralized government handle 350 million people? Very poorly.
States rights today are more or less a myth.
Our original system of government no longer exists, and in it's place are the results of about 100 years of failure to adapt and improve. At some point our leaders, and their influencers (not voters) decided more control was needed. 2020 was if anything, evidence that their previous methods of manipulation were not doing the job fast enough or effective enough.

That is why their intent, whether it be the politicians, the banks/stockmarket, big tech, outside groups and influencers is so blatant and obvious to those willing to see.
The OP's question is based on a flawed and failed system, so any answer that plays within that system would be flawed in it's premise and fail as a result.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

The whole tax thing should be turned on it's head, while the overall burden on most folks, should be greatly reduced. Local and state governments should be paid the lions share of the tax money collected and the overall cost of taxes, for most people/companies, should be greatly reduced. Government needs to be much smaller and allow The People to run the economy, not the pseudo-planned economy that some are currently trying to build.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

georger said:


> Smaller government. Less taxes.


Originally, a local/state Rep served at most 10,000-15,000 constituents in the larger cities. Today that Representative or Senator can garner millions of votes. There is no possible way to represent the wishes and needs of so many people in a balanced manner. Yet, our elected leaders no longer care to serve you. They serve the party. They serve their donors, handlers, influencers and whomever can gain them an advantage to becoming a career legislator. Votes are party line, not voter line. This isn't political, it is something much worse that we allow to happen and even participate in.
I listened to several nationally know media professionals recently who openly revealed that of all of the politicians they have interviewed, from the bottom to the top, including Presidents, less than 10% (their opinion) actually believed what they said or intended on pursuing their public platforms.
At one time, politicians entered office with an idealogy that morphed into pragmatism; today it has nothing to do with either.


----------



## 67drake (May 6, 2020)

I go to all my towns board meetings. I think their incompetence is on par with the federal government. They spend money we don’t have on things we don’t need.
I also started a thread about this before ( I think it was on this site). But what is amazing to me is that NOBODY from town goes to the board meetings, except those few of us that have to go. Everyone bitches about the spending here, but nobody complains to the board! They sit there and spend with no public there to call them on it.


----------



## bamabear44 (Jan 30, 2018)

no ! we pay enough now..... tax congress!


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GTX63 said:


> You seem to be making an argument for punishing businesses that streamline or improve efficiency, however that method is.
> You just turned a tax into a penalty.


I didn't turn it into a penalty. I specifically said the tax would be such that the company would make more money by automating, but would pay a tax to help cover the cost of the displaced workers.

Look at what globalism has done to US. A company like Walmart buys cheap Chinese products and sells them for a huge profit in US. Apple makes the iPhone overseas. An auto manufacturer replaces thousands of employees with robots. Auto manufacturers move auto assembly to Mexico. Factories are built wherever labor is cheapest and regulations the fewest. We are getting very close to the point where AI is going to put millions of Americans out of work.

What happens to all the people displaced by globalism and automation? Where does the government get the money for unemployment, health care, social security, retraining, etc? At some point, there are not going to be enough jobs for everyone.

At the same time, the working class is either losing ground or stagnating, big corporations and their owners are getting richer and richer. What's your solution?

ETA: I have always been a free market capitalist until I saw what it recently has done to US. Too big to fail bank bailouts with millionaires and billionaires being bailed out by taxpayers. A worldwide recession caused by the greed of big banks. Covid-19 spreading worldwide in a matter of weeks. Factories moved overseas with no social responsibilities of businesses to their communities. And on and on. Globalism is free-market capitalism on steroids.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> I didn't turn it into a penalty. I specifically said the tax would be such that the company would make more money by automating, but would pay a tax to help cover the cost of the displaced workers.
> 
> Look at what globalism has done to US. A company like Walmart buys cheap Chinese products and sells them for a huge profit in US. Apple makes the iPhone overseas. An auto manufacturer replaces thousands of employees with robots. Auto manufacturers move auto assembly to Mexico. Factories are built wherever labor is cheapest and regulations the fewest. We are getting very close to the point where AI is going to put millions of Americans out of work.
> 
> ...


Taxation is by its nature a penalty. You are extending it by definition as a tool to manipulate an industry/business/market. You are correct, and these are my words, globalism sucks.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

The federal government needs to be massively cut. The US is a federation of states and more control of economies needs to be returned to the states. The federal government's roll needs to return to its original constitutional purpose. The people have much more control of the government at the state and local level and that is where taxes and expenditures should primarily be because it provides checks and balances on the states. If one state government raises taxes and regulations too high, the residents can always move to another state. We see that happening now to a degree but the federal government can always bail out the inefficient states. We have much more control of who gets elected at the local level. If a state legislator does not please the majority of his constituents, he is voted out. That does not work well on the national level because the densely populated areas (cities) decide who will run the entire country. Reduce the power of the federal government as intended and let the people decide at the state and local level what level of taxation they want in order to pay for the services they want from government. We see the same issues with the EU.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> I didn't turn it into a penalty. I specifically said the tax would be such that the company would make more money by automating, but would pay a tax to help cover the cost of the displaced workers.
> 
> Look at what globalism has done to US. A company like Walmart buys cheap Chinese products and sells them for a huge profit in US. Apple makes the iPhone overseas. An auto manufacturer replaces thousands of employees with robots. Auto manufacturers move auto assembly to Mexico. Factories are built wherever labor is cheapest and regulations the fewest. We are getting very close to the point where AI is going to put millions of Americans out of work.
> 
> ...


It is like we need a great reset or something


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

MoonRiver said:


> I have always been a free market capitalist until I saw what it recently has done to US. Too big to fail bank bailouts with millionaires and billionaires being bailed out by taxpayers. A worldwide recession caused by the greed of big banks. Covid-19 spreading worldwide in a matter of weeks. Factories moved overseas with no social responsibilities of businesses to their communities. And on and on. Globalism is free-market capitalism on steroids.


What seems to have turned you off of the free market is largely non-free market actions taken by government.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

The stock market is not free market capitalism. The current system of banking is not free market capitalism.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

If a very big government cannot support your wants and needs effectively, make it bigger, make it a world wide government.

Give more control to a bigger government.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Taxation to a company, whether mom and pop or corporations, is considered one of the costs of doing business. It is almost always passed on to the next in line. When the taxation becomes too burdensome, they either relocate to a lesser taxed area or they spend the money they would have spent on taxes on tax accountants and attornies. The mom and pops have few alternatives.
If taxation was not a penalty it wouldn't need to be disguised under aliases such as fees, tolls, permits, excise, duty, assessment, etc.
Read your phone or cable or property tax bill lately?
Have you wondered why taxes are automatically deducted from most employee paychecks?
Because they don't get to hold it and put it in their bank account.
What do you think the current climate would be from voters if they all had to write quarterly checks to the government on that $15 an hour job, while reading about all of the money sent overseas, or for programs in the US that they may not agree with?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> an honest discussion


Is all of this honest enough for you.

I don't know what the breaking point is for the American people. I do not know what the straw will be that breaks our back. It will not be taxes. Taxes can be avoided. The tighter the tax man tightens the screws, the more creative people become. People are smart. They do a very good job at protecting their own interest.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

A couple real world points to consider-- The Laffer Curve shows there's a sweet spot-- as you lower taxes. you actually increase revenue to the govt because the stimulation to the economy grows faster than the fall in taxes- ie- lower rate but higher tax base.

Socialism necessarily deteriorates to totalitarianism-- the results of a free election could result in a change of regime if the voters get dissatisfied. That's an unstable situation. We can't go switching back & forth from capitalism to socialism every four yrs. Capitalism is by definition freedom of choice. while socialism is lack of choice, all  central planning.

Wasn't it Churchill who said democracy is a lousy system, but it's the best thing we got?....Not to change the subject, but did you ever wonder what Winston Churchill sounded like talking out on the playground as a 6 y/o.?..."nn-I saaww Lunnn-dun,... nn-I saaww Fraahnce, nn-I saaww Mary's unn-duh paahnce."


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

doc- said:


> did you ever wonder what Winston Churchill sounded like talking out on the playground as a 6 y/o.?


I was more fixated on what type of cigar he smoked when he was six


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

On a simpler level, whether or not someone thinks higher taxes is a good idea will depend on whether they are on the receiving end or the paying end. It also depends on whether the person likes freedom and independence to chart his/her own course or wants a nanny state to fulfill his desires with no effort on his part. We now have about 50% of our people on the receiving end paying no income taxes. Of course most of them benefit from taxes paid by the other 50%, so they think raising taxes is a good thing. Promise them things like raising the child tax credit and sure they would support raising taxes to pay for it because they pay no taxes and would receive more of other people's money. I have always thought everyone should have to pay some income tax, even if it is only 50 bucks a year. Make them write the check or get the money order. Then if government raises it to 55 bucks, they feel the impact too.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Churchill was a hero who led England from defeat to the Nazis, to being voted out of office by the end of the war.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Farmerga said:


> What seems to have turned you off of the free market is largely non-free market actions taken by government.


It is exactly the definition of free market capitalism.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> Is all of this honest enough for you.
> 
> I don't know what the breaking point is for the American people. I do not know what the straw will be that breaks our back. It will not be taxes. Taxes can be avoided. The tighter the tax man tightens the screws, the more creative people become. People are smart. They do a very good job at protecting their own interest.


Jobs and the ability to support your family.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> Jobs and the ability to support your family.


I agree. What level of unemployment would be the breaking point?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Living on unemployment, stimulus checks and entitlements is not supporting your family. The number of able bodied citizens who are provided for rather than providing for, is changing the definition.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> I agree. What level of unemployment would be the breaking point?


I think it will depend on who loses their jobs. The pipeline workers and oil workers make good money and unemployment is not going to cover it. If state governments don't start backing off from lockdowns, school closings, and business restrictions by the time it starts warming up, things will get hot.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> I think it will depend on who loses their jobs. The pipeline workers and oil workers make good money and unemployment is not going to cover it. If state governments don't start backing off from lockdowns, school closings, and business restrictions by the time it starts warming up, things will get hot.


We have recently dropped as low as 100 million full time workers in the US and still no popular uprising. 

Knock out 50 million for those over 65, and 80 million for those less than 19. With a total population of 330 million, that puts us at 100 million people not working with no real social repercussions.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

My family has mostly left California. Higher taxes lead to higher prices, and then the younger people have difficulty in finding a job that will pay enough to survive. So, my family have been moving out so that they could be independent.

Also, here in the Midwest there are no brown outs, my round trip commute is less than 3 hours, and a typical house sits on 1/5 of an acre instead of 1/20 of an acre


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Higher taxes to reduce deficit spending is like increased pet euthanasia solve the pet overpopulation problem.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Here lies my problem with all of it. We have the I want it all I want all and I want it now crowd. Then my crowd just wants to be left alone!!! You can't borrow your way out of debt... Trust me I tried in the late 90's...


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

Higher taxes won't solve the problem - because the more taxes they get, the more they spend. 

There is so much waste and money that could be saved on different projects - but the "solution" by government is to just throw more money at it.

We need to get back to people that are actually public servants. People that are actually run for a certain position to do the greater good for the people - not so the "public servant" can serve themselves larger raises each year, large salary, major benefits, plus leave with a pension. (The average salary for Senators and House Representatives is $174,000.00.)

There are 100 Senators and 435 House Representatives. Do the math.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Michael W. Smith said:


> Higher taxes won't solve the problem - because the more taxes they get, the more they spend.
> 
> There is so much waste and money that could be saved on different projects - but the "solution" by government is to just throw more money at it.
> 
> ...


How much is spent on getting them there? I would house them in barracks and chow time at 6am. Bus them to the Capitol and back. Go back to your constituents after three months. I am a simple man though!...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Michael W. Smith said:


> Do the math


OK

.003% of the total US budget


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

TripleD said:


> How much is spent on getting them there? I would house them in barracks and chow time at 6am. Bus them to the Capitol and back. Go back to your constituents after three months. I am a simple man though!...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

$6.4 trillion and 801,000 dead since 2001 in the Middle East


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

HDRider said:


> View attachment 93553


According to mom if you feed them hospital food they will get things done. She's been there four days...


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

MoonRiver said:


> I can make an argument for higher taxes in 2 cases:
> 
> I think there should be a tax on automation. If a company buys AI, a machine, or a technology that allows them to produce at the same or higher level with a fewer number of employees, the company should pay a yearly tax based on how many employees have been displaced. It needs to be in the sweet spot where it still encourages the development of automation and the implementation of automation, but raises substantial money to cover extended unemployment, health care, social security, retraining, relocation if necessary, etc.
> Companies that offshore US jobs should pay a tax similar to above.
> ...


This is with all due respect. 

Should we tax cell phone companies for making it easier to make a call? 

Nail gun companies for easier building of houses? 

Railroads for easier transport? 

All of these things took jobs from somewhere and someone. 

I could go on and on but that is exactly what will happen. It will be tied into a bill that says something like "_*feed the poor single mothers.*_" A bill that should take one page but end up being bigger than the bible. But that topic is for another thread.

What I have experienced in my lifetime isnt that we are taxed so much, it's that the money is spent largely frivolously. Instead of paying the bills for these programs we instead get a "budget". These government agencies will almost always have funds left over. Then they spend like the devil come November so they wont have the next year budget cut. Every single government agency I have worked for (and I have worked for several) used me and other contractors to spend this money late in the year. They all said the same thing. We have to spend it all or be cut next year. 

Well, if you didnt need it this year, maybe you wouldnt need it next year either. This needs to change big time.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

brosil said:


> Governments only collect about 20% of income no matter what they try. Raise the taxes beyond that and people will aggressively cheat or simply not work anymore than they have to. That's why slavery was a failed economic system even before the Civil War.


They probably get more than that if you count sales, sin, luxury and other tax. They are getting good at it.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

poppy said:


> On a simpler level, whether or not someone thinks higher taxes is a good idea will depend on whether they are on the receiving end or the paying end. It also depends on whether the person likes freedom and independence to chart his/her own course or wants a nanny state to fulfill his desires with no effort on his part. We now have about 50% of our people on the receiving end paying no income taxes. Of course most of them benefit from taxes paid by the other 50%, so they think raising taxes is a good thing. Promise them things like raising the child tax credit and sure they would support raising taxes to pay for it because they pay no taxes and would receive more of other people's money. I have always thought everyone should have to pay some income tax, even if it is only 50 bucks a year. Make them write the check or get the money order. Then if government raises it to 55 bucks, they feel the impact too.


But who on the receiving end really makes enough to thrive on?


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

I believe Alice mentioned it earlier. But for many years now, the expenditures of the Federal government has no correlation whatsoever with its revenues. They just make money up. So, why tax anyone? They use the tax stick as either a bludgeon or a carrot or prod and an issue to garner votes, campaign donations and to get your enterprise to hire their spouses, children, 1st and 2nd cousins and any concubines or consorts.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

The first employee any business man should ever hire is an accountant. The better the business the better the accountant you can afford. Those people are great at getting you out of paying taxes. People that think you can punish "rich" people by charging them higher taxes are misguided. "Rich" people are likely to benefit from those tax laws by the time their accountants get done with their job. 

Everybody is locked into a multigenerational dependence model. Welfare comes in many forms. From the staying in poverty to qualify for a check, to corporate welfare, to government employment . People have played the game for generations now, it's all they know. Getting out of bed, taking risks and humping all day is a foreign concept to most folks. So is only having yourself to blame for the things you don't have. A hard days work and a cold drink of water would kill a lot of people, and we would be better off without them.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mreynolds said:


> This is with all due respect.
> 
> Should we tax cell phone companies for making it easier to make a call?
> 
> ...


There is change that is not a major disruptor and there is change that is a major disruptor.

We are in the early stages of the biggest disruption since the industrial revolution. We have already seen hundreds if not thousands of small towns nearly destroyed as manufacturing moved overseas. Kids move away to find jobs and the town withers away. We know that Walmart provides less expensive goods and groceries, but at what cost to small towns and cities? The recent changes we have seen because of Covid-19 are further speeding up the loss of local jobs as the multinationals take much of their business.

Using communication (Internet) and cheap transportation, globalist companies can open factories wherever they find cheap labor and little regulation. This results in massive job loss in US as knowledge jobs remain in US, but good-paying blue-collar jobs disappear. Then the globalist companies bring in foreign tech workers to fill many of the knowledge jobs at salaries lower than US citizens would command.

The IT revolution starting in the 80's, also reduced the number of employees a company needed, but the field was growing so fast that there were great tech jobs up until recently. IT has matured and now it takes much fewer people to maintain systems. The big tech companies are looking for people with high IQ's that live and breathe their jobs. There are only so many high IQ IT people in US, so this is another reason why they bring in foreign workers. At the same time tech companies are adding more and more AI to their platforms, eliminating many lower-level positions.

Let's look at just autonomous trucks. The short term goal is to reduce having 2 drivers in a truck to 1, and then eventually to none. So that's the 1st job loss. Then you don't need as many truck stops, restaurants, etc to serve the drivers, so there is the loss of those jobs. Then you have the businesses that grow up around truck stops that will have less business and either lay off some workers or close.

That's what's going to happen every time we see AI implemented on a large scale across an industry. The job functions are still being done, just not by people.

People have been studying this problem for years. That's where the idea of a guaranteed income comes from. It gets twisted depending on who is saying it, but the idea is what are we going to do with these millions of peoples that don't have jobs because there aren't enough jobs to go around? 

My idea is we tax the companies as they displace workers so that there is money available to sustain the unemployed. Maybe we start something along the line of the WPA where we use some of the money to hire people to do public service jobs or even rebuild infrastructure. 

Globalization and automation are causing the biggest economic, political, and social disruption at least since WWII. The percent of wealth of the upper class is increasing and the wealth of the middle class is decreasing. This trend has been going on for at least 50 years and has recently accelerated. 

The people currently in power want to speed things up. This is going to become a crisis sooner than later.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> We have recently dropped as low as 100 million full time workers in the US and still no popular uprising.
> 
> Knock out 50 million for those over 65, and 80 million for those less than 19. With a total population of 330 million, that puts us at 100 million people not working with no real social repercussions.


We are only about 7 million below the high we reached in 2020. We are around 125 million and the high was about 132 million.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

mreynolds said:


> But who on the receiving end really makes enough to thrive on?


Follow the path this is leading and consider a scenario-
Every American citizen earning less than 90k per year is granted a UBI (Universal Basic Income) of say $15000 per year. That is aside from entitlements such as unemployment, snap, utility and housing assistance, health care, tax refunds, etc.
Having a low to mid level grade employment job won't penalize their UBI so they can bounce around from job to job as they see fit. Employers will see increasing incentives to hire specific people based on income and ethnicity rather than degrees and experience.
You are no longer beholden to a paycheck to provide for your family. Your kids will be getting free college and your retirement income will be guaranteed at some level thru SSI, etc, so concern for 401K and investments will not be a priority among possibly 100+ million people.
That segment will pay no income tax.
How will that affect banks and lending guidelines?
How do you think that demographic will vote?
When you tell someone today they can be anything they want to be in this country if they are determined and work hard, they might believe you; if you say that to the next generation they may think "Why"?
The national debt? It is nothing but a number. It is nothing.

They will knock down all of the mountains and fill in all of the valleys. No one will climb and no one will sink. Everyone will stand side by side on flat ground, and no one will be able to see.


----------



## hiddensprings (Aug 6, 2009)

I don't believe anyone wants to pay more taxes. With that being said, I do believe it is important for us to know where our money is going. I started at the county level. I go to the meetings where budgets are discusses. I ask to meet with department heads to actually have them go over their budget with me. I learned a lot. The highest expense in my county is Social Services. Its nuts. Trying to redline certain things is impossible because of both state and federal mandates. Get rid of the government over reach (Feds telling states, states telling counties) and you could do some serious work on a budget to cut. As long as DC is involved, we are doomed. The politicians are like kids playing with Monopoly money.......


----------



## wil14 (Sep 13, 2020)

Yeah. California is what maybe 10-20 years ahead of the rest of the nation? One hard lesson I had when i bought my farm was that you either need unlimited time or money to make up for really badly designed systems. I wanted my house in a certain spot so I built a dam that I could build a road on. That then meant utilities in a difficult spot and I had to run them myself not the utility companies which then made upkeep difficult. I then needed cross fencing due to the planned large yard since I was in the middle of the pasture now so more fencing costs, etc. That doesn't even get into the mistakes I made starting out with livestock... I'm in a decent situation now but only because I learned my lesson. High taxes are fine if you have a healthy and maintainable system. So are lower taxes. 

I think fundamentally, we've a system that is not in any way based on reality and cannot succeed no matter how many people we hire or how much money we print and/or drain from the middle class. Monarchy seems a little silly these days but ideally I'd want leaders that view the nation paternalistically or as a landholder stewarding something to hand off to their children. Maybe democracy can work if you keep the parasite load down... but I think it was always going to end this way.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

The reality that our nation was built on isn't the reality (whatever that is) that we have now.

Human beings were involved in every step of the process, and we know how well that turns out.

An article about Ben Franklin's comment on the likelihood that we would retain the republic.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/12/18/republic-if-you-can-keep-it-did-ben-franklin-really-say-impeachment-days-favorite-quote/


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

The most reliable source of the quote about problems we are having in our democratic republic. It wasn't any of our elder statesmen or DeTocqueville.

"Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader--the barbarians enter Rome."

~Robert A. Heinlein, To Sail Beyond the Sunset (1987) pg 223

Articles and analysis about the origin of the oft used, more concise versions:





__





Sorry, Conservatives, De Tocqueville Did Not Call the 2012 Election


From the moment President Obama was reelected, disgruntled conservatives began circulating a quote heralding democracy's downfall at the hands of greedy voters. We hate to break it to them in their time of mourning, but their favorite bit of historical wisdom is fabricated.




www.theatlantic.com













To whom should the quotation, "democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government ..." be correctly attributed?


Answer (1 of 5): Original Question: To whom should the quotation, "democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government ..." be correctly attributed? Your quote: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themse...



www.quora.com


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## DKJ (Jan 17, 2021)

HDRider said:


> My objection is not so much as how much taxes we pay, but how the money is spent. Here is a short list in no particular order
> 
> Iraq, and Afghanistan were bad investments.
> 
> ...


You could add borrowing billions from foreign countries only to turn around and give to it to other countries who haven't paid back the billions we already loaned/gave to them.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

MoonRiver said:


> There is change that is not a major disruptor and there is change that is a major disruptor.
> 
> We are in the early stages of the biggest disruption since the industrial revolution. We have already seen hundreds if not thousands of small towns nearly destroyed as manufacturing moved overseas. Kids move away to find jobs and the town withers away. We know that Walmart provides less expensive goods and groceries, but at what cost to small towns and cities? The recent changes we have seen because of Covid-19 are further speeding up the loss of local jobs as the multinationals take much of their business.
> 
> ...


Good synopsis. .I'm not sure I like your remedy.

The great social/economic changes that occurred with the development of steam, then fossil fuel powered mechanization causing millions to leave the farms and go to factory jobs in the city was a voluntary migration that resulted in a more lucrative, stable living for those who chose that route...

It did not come about because "the powers that be" decided they wanted to do away with farms. 

This coming crisis is equivalent to "doing away with farms."...They offer no alternative to those who will lose jobs to robotics. 

I'm generally against govt interventions, especially govt social engineering via taxation--- but I think most people don't see the enormity of this looming crisis...Instead of taxation to cover the costs of unemployment, perhaps we should tax punitively to the point of discouraging robotics...People need to work


----------



## Bront (Jan 26, 2021)

mreynolds said:


> And lets have an honest discussion without mentioning blue or red thingies.
> 
> ExitCalifornia.org | California Relocation Program


Country lost over a trillion in revenues from tax cuts over the last 4 years. May 

need to replenish the purse.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

So where did that money go? Nowhere. It was still in circulation, it just came out of our pockets directly rather than the government, and we chose how to spend it.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

doc- said:


> Good synopsis. .I'm not sure I like your remedy.
> 
> The great social/economic changes that occurred with the development of steam, then fossil fuel powered mechanization causing millions to leave the farms and go to factory jobs in the city was a voluntary migration that resulted in a more lucrative, stable living for those who chose that route...
> 
> ...


Even if you could do that in US, most countries wouldn't. 

The thought is that humans will seek a higher level - Maslow's Level 5 - the need to pursue and fulfill one’s unique potentials. Some people will continue their education, some create art or music, some will invent new stuff, some will spend their time on hobbies. etc. Somewhat similar to what happened during the Renaissance.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I think Facebook, online games, and YouTube have taken the place of hobbies and the concept of work, innovation, crafts, and music. I saw this when I was teaching. When students were asked about hobbies, the response was a blank stare.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Bront said:


> Country lost over a trillion in revenues from tax cuts over the last 4 years. May
> 
> need to replenish the purse.


The country didn't lose anything. In fact, it gained. When you leave the spending of the money to the people instead of the government more sales tax is created. There is no loopholes on sales tax. The richest pay more and the poorest part less. Then that money goes to your state and local. That way the tax money you pay benefits you and not me. 

Taxes are collected many different ways. When you cut income tax then sales tax increases. When you raise income tax sales tax decreases. It's all a wash. It's just according to who you want to benefit, yourself or Washington politicians.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

There are loopholes to sales tax, but it is by far the most unbiased, non partisan and fair based method for the collection to the King's Purse available. 
I do dislike that word "fair" and avoid it as much as possible. It applies here.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Bront said:


> Country lost over a trillion in revenues from tax cuts over the last 4 years. May
> 
> need to replenish the purse.



That is simply not true. Tax revenue increased every year over the last 4 years. We didn't lose a dime. We gained. Now if you want to play the liberal math game, you can pretend you are right. They often project how much they expect and if it falls short of their expectations, they count that as a loss. That is fakery at its finest. If you or I estimate our pay will increase by $1000 next year but our boss only gives us a $500 raise, can we deduct that other $500 as a loss on our income taxes?

*U.S. Tax Revenue by Year*
Here's a record of income for each fiscal year since 1789. Tax receipts fell off during the recession but started setting new records by FY 2013.6



Fiscal YearRevenueFY 2021$3.86 (estimated)FY 2020$3.71 trillion (estimated)FY 2019$3.46 trillion (actual)FY 2018$3.33 trillionFY 2017$3.32 trillionFY 2016$3.27 trillionFY 2015$3.25 trillionFY 2014$3.02 trillionFY 2013$2.77 trillionFY 2012$2.45 trillionFY 2011$2.30 trillionFY 2010$2.16 trillionFY 2009$2.10 trillionFY 2008$2.52 trillionFY 2007$2.57 trillionFY 2006$2.41 trillionFY 2005$2.15 trillionFY 2004$1.88 trillionFY 2003$1.78 trillionFY 2002$1.85 trillionFY 2001$1.99 trillionFY 2000$2.03 trillionFY 1999$1.82 trillionFY 1998$1.72 trillionFY 1997$1.58 trillionFY 1996$1.45 trillionFY 1995$1.35 trillionFY 1994$1.26 trillionFY 1993$1.15 trillionFY 1992$1.09 trillionFY 1991$1.05 trillionFY 1990$1.03 trillionFY 1989$991 billionFY1988$909 billionFY 1987$854 billionFY 1986$769 billionFY 1985$734 billionFY 1984$666 billionFY 1983$601 billionFY 1982$618 billionFY 1981$599 billionFY 1980$517 billionFY 1979$463 billion


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> Even if you could do that in US, most countries wouldn't.
> 
> The thought is that humans will seek a higher level - Maslow's Level 5 - the need to pursue and fulfill one’s unique potentials. Some people will continue their education, some create art or music, some will invent new stuff, some will spend their time on hobbies. etc. Somewhat similar to what happened during the Renaissance.


Do you really believe that?


----------



## NEPA (Feb 21, 2015)

Seems to me we all spend money based on perceived value. If we perceive the government is providing something that is worth the taxes, then all is good. If they want to provide more, and require more money, same scenario. Most of us, especially those active on this forum, don't feel the government provides much for the money we spend. You can't just discuss higher taxes without describing what that extra spending will provide. Most politicians don't understand this.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Do you really believe that?


Exactly.
Population of Europe in 1500 was around 60 million.....How many DaVincis, Michaelangelos & Raphaels did it produce?

Do you really think your good for nothing brother in law will learn to play the cello when he loses his job as bag boy at the PigglyWiggly?


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

NEPA said:


> Seems to me we all spend money based on perceived value. If we perceive the government is providing something that is worth the taxes, then all is good. If they want to provide more, and require more money, same scenario. Most of us, especially those active on this forum, don't feel the government provides much for the money we spend. You can't just discuss higher taxes without describing what that extra spending will provide. Most politicians don't understand this.


What most people don't understand is that the vast majority of money spent on "govt programs" is wages for govt workers shuffling papers, not on goods & services that come to us, the taxpayers.....One in seven jobs are with the govt.(!!)

As .Reagan said, the closest thing to immortality is a govt program.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> Do you really believe that?


I didn't say it was my thought. My guess is about half would make use of the time on things they were passionate about and the other half on things like eating, drinking, drugs, and partying. There are probably some people who couldn't function without someone telling them what to do and when to do it. That's why I think something like the WPA might be needed.

Every time a company I was working for was laying people off and giving them severance pay, I volunteered. Unfortunately, they never took me up on my offer. I wasn't big on college when I was there, but years later I became obsessed with learning. If I would have had an opportunity in my 40's or 50's to go to college and have my basic living expenses covered, I would have jumped at the opportunity. There is so much to learn about science, philosophy, behavior, motivation, music, etc.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

doc- said:


> Exactly.
> Population of Europe in 1500 was around 60 million.....How many DaVincis, Michaelangelos & Raphaels did it produce?
> 
> Do you really think your good for nothing brother in law will learn to play the cello when he loses his job as bag boy at the PigglyWiggly?


I was careful to use the word similar. The Renaissance brought about a huge change in the way people thought (humanism), the way information was shared (Guttenberg Press), and the arts (sculpture, painting, music, philosophy). Freeing people to pursue their passions might lead to a similar renaissance. 

This is based on what many social scientists believe would happen. As I said in previous post, some people would likely thrive under those conditions and others wouldn't.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

doc- said:


> What most people don't understand is that the vast majority of money spent on "govt programs" is wages for govt workers shuffling papers, not on goods & services that come to us, the taxpayers.....One in seven jobs are with the govt.(!!)
> 
> As .Reagan said, the closest thing to immortality is a govt program.


I worked for the government back in the late 80's. There were about 50 people in our branch and I would say 2 were slackers, at least 20 I would rate as high achievers, and the rest as competent. Things may have changed since then.


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

I live in Washington state. I am moving to Maine. This is largely because of taxes-money spent on the children and the homeless (drug addicts)

Taxes are proposed to build roads, library's, but ends up in some civic program and the money diffuses into the ether. 

Now we have a president that wants to give money away for the never ending story (covid, the gift that keeps on giving).

It has to be paid for somehow. Other than taxes how can it be paid off? (Inflation will pay it off, but we would than be poor unless you have a huge debt load)

My stuff is paid for, therefor I do not want inflation, but than taxes would not help either 'cause than I would just be giving money away for stuff already paid for.

Maybe I should buy another 100 Ac and let inflation pay it down. I don't know. I see storm cloud on the horizon...


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa said:


> I live in Washington state. I am moving to Maine. This is largely because of taxes-money spent on the children and the homeless (drug addicts)
> 
> Taxes are proposed to build roads, library's, but ends up in some civic program and the money diffuses into the ether.
> 
> ...


I see more than storm clouds. This country has sent trillions of dollars we didn't have and can never possibly pay back. Been going on for decades but the acceleration in recent years should frighten everyone. Obama built up the national debt in 8 years close to the total of all presidents before him. What do we have to show for it? Trump ran it up a few more trillion in his 4 years, especially the last year due to COVID. Biden is already wanting trillions more for his pet projects. Wasn't it Washington who warned against foreign entanglements? But we sure like to entangle the nation. We give billions to foreign countries, many of which hate us. Trying to buy friends never works. We are so entangled with China that unless things change they will own us. They already control many of our large companies. Maybe not in name, but those companies follow every dictate China gives them. This massive spending will hit us hard in many ways. It will destroy our bond market and who fill fund all this spending when bonds become worthless and other countries stop buying them? There are not enough billionaires and millionaires to do it for more than a couple years even if government takes every dime they have. Who pays then?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

There was no Jerry Springer on the TV during the renaissance. People back then had to find something to do it go crazy. 

Nope, as long as Jerry and Maurey reruns are on most will just sit and watch it.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mreynolds said:


> There was no Jerry Springer on the TV during the renaissance. People back then had to find something to do it go crazy.
> 
> Nope, as long as Jerry and Maurey reruns are on most will just sit and watch it.



This is where the country is headed according to a new Gallup poll. It is headed into a deep funk. COVID lockdowns and such played a huge part last year but it is still declining after the election. As more federal policies under the new administration see the light of day, it will further decline because 90% of people know we are headed in the wrong direction. My advice is to stock up on things you use, get out of debt as best you can, and plan accordingly. If I am wrong, at least you will be in better shape. If I am right, what I suggest may not be enough. Remember the 'malaise' in the Carter years? This could get much worse.

Lowest rating since they started the survey in 2001. 

Blue funk: US ‘satisfaction’ takes deepest dive ever recorded (washingtonexaminer.com)


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

MoonRiver said:


> I worked for the government back in the late 80's. There were about 50 people in our branch and I would say 2 were slackers, at least 20 I would rate as high achievers, and the rest as competent. Things may have changed since then.


I'm not claiming govt workers aren't good workers...I'm pointing out where the money goes....We could probably make a good case that the work done, even if done conscientiously, is superfluous....Cf- "govt shutdowns" when non-essential workers are sent home-Do we need to ever be paying anybody who is non-essential?

Famous Ross Perot anecdote-- He said he was visiting the Dept of Ag and saw a worker sitting at his desk, head in hands, weeping..."What's wrong?" asked Perot...."My farmer died," lamented the worker.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

doc- said:


> I'm not claiming govt workers aren't good workers...I'm pointing out where the money goes....We could probably make a good case that the work done, even if done conscientiously, is superfluous....Cf- "govt shutdowns" when non-essential workers are sent home-Do we need to ever be paying anybody who is non-essential?
> 
> Famous Ross Perot anecdote-- He said he was visiting the Dept of Ag and saw a worker sitting at his desk, head in hands, weeping..."What's wrong?" asked Perot...."My farmer died," lamented the worker.


I think a lot of that happened when Congress got strict about government workers working overtime. Where I worked, it was normal for most people to work as many hours as it took to get the job done without getting comp time or overtime pay. People can't do that anymore, so they need an inflated headcount for the busy times. On snow days when the government was closed, it wasn't uncommon to find 10 people at work so they could get caught up with no one interrupting them. Those kinds of things will get you in trouble today.

The other thing that changed was how government employees are paid. Back then, salaries were lower than corporate jobs, but the benefits were better. A lot of people left the government to make more money in the corporate world. Then Congress raised pay to be competitive with non-government salaries. Now it is higher than most equivalent corporate positions with better benefits. Nobody leaves and many get 6 weeks or more of vacation a year plus more holidays than most companies give. It has to be inefficient because that's what congress made it.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

MoonRiver said:


> I think a lot of that happened when Congress got strict about government workers working overtime. Where I worked, it was normal for most people to work as many hours as it took to get the job done without getting comp time or overtime pay. People can't do that anymore, so they need an inflated headcount for the busy times. On snow days when the government was closed, it wasn't uncommon to find 10 people at work so they could get caught up with no one interrupting them. Those kinds of things will get you in trouble today.
> 
> The other thing that changed was how government employees are paid. Back then, salaries were lower than corporate jobs, but the benefits were better. A lot of people left the government to make more money in the corporate world. Then Congress raised pay to be competitive with non-government salaries. Now it is higher than most equivalent corporate positions with better benefits. Nobody leaves and many get 6 weeks or more of vacation a year plus more holidays than most companies give. It has to be inefficient because that's what congress made it.


I think it's more that each department feels they need to increase the amount of money they need every year or they're deemed unimportant by the powers that be. One of the easiest ways to increase your budget is to claim you don't enough people to get the job done because you are _so_ busy, your department's work is _that_ important, you need more people to handle it all (even if you don't). The government couldn't operate without you, that's how much important work you're doing, if only you had enough people.

Been watching it for most of my adult life in various sectors of the government. You need one person working and three people watching them or you're obviously not really all that necessary and can expect your budget to be cut.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Real world example-- Early in my career, I worked at a large Chi-area VA hosp. There was this lab tech who looked just like Lonnie Anderson (but with a good hair do). Needless to say, I spent a lot of my spare time in the lab. ...They had easily 20 lab techs on duty at all times, most of them drinking coffee, eating donuts and reading the newspaper while only about five at any given time were actually working.

I got to know the lab director and brought up my observation. He said that's because that's the way it works in govt....Each year he was required to draw up a budget. If he didn't ask for more money each year, he was given less...so year by year his staff increased in size in order not to be cut back.

Waste in govt goes way back of course. How many movies from The War Years joke about the intra-govt Black Market or filling out forms in triplicate? Gov work is basically a paper chase-- if the forms are not filled out, it wasn't done, and if they are, everything must be OK. Proper paperwork is all that is required to satisfy the superiors. The actual results don't count.

[edit-- I just re-read this post. I started out with "Real world example"-- made me laugh at myself...I'm talking about the govt, not The Real World.]


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

doc- said:


> Real world example-- Early in my career, I worked at a large Chi-area VA hosp. There was this lab tech who looked just like Lonnie Anderson (but with a good hair do). Needless to say, I spent a lot of my spare time in the lab. ...They had easily 20 lab techs on duty at all times, most of them drinking coffee, eating donuts and reading the newspaper while only about five at any given time were actually working.
> 
> I got to know the lab director and brought up my observation. He said that's because that's the way it works in govt....Each year he was required to draw up a budget. If he didn't ask for more money each year, he was given less...so year by year his staff increased in size in order not to be cut back.
> 
> ...



I have posted my "real world example" before but you may have missed it. 

In 2005 I was a subprime contractor for FEMA and others. Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma made sure I was thrown in coals of newness. I made 35 dollars a square to install blue tarp. FEMA supplied all the tarp. I supplied everything else from manpower to nails and tape. 

This is public knowledge so anyone can look if they want to. FEMA that year paid 160 dollars a square to a prime company. Probably someone's brother in law. 

They paid 130 dollars to another family member I am sure. 

They paid 110 to the next "contractor" (They didnt get as much so not liked in the family In guess)

Who paid the next one 90 dollars a square

Who paid the next one 60 dollars a square

Who paid me 35 a square. And I made killer money too. The 60 dollar contractor had 1 guy there giving out ROE's (right of entries) The ROE's were all done by the Army Corp, not by the public or contractor. The Army Corp did all the inspecting too. None of the other contractors were ever there at all, they just took the money and never looked back. There was probably billion of squares installed that year. I installed a large number. 800-1200 a day per crew. We tarped for 6 months. 

Everyone is thinking hard about the hourly workers of the government but the real money wasted is to the contractors. They cant hide hourly money as easy as to "contractors" who may or may not share the same DNA as the ones giving the money out.


----------



## wil14 (Sep 13, 2020)

MoonRiver said:


> I was careful to use the word similar. The Renaissance brought about a huge change in the way people thought (humanism), the way information was shared (Guttenberg Press), and the arts (sculpture, painting, music, philosophy). Freeing people to pursue their passions might lead to a similar renaissance.
> 
> This is based on what many social scientists believe would happen. As I said in previous post, some people would likely thrive under those conditions and others wouldn't.



The biggest difference between then and today is that the average IQ was increasing due to eugenic pressures (wealthy had many children that survived, poor had a high child mortality rate) and peaked in the victorian era with the average person on the street having a 120 IQ if using today as the baseline 100. Basically half the people walking around were geniuses by today's standard in victorian times.

You essentially had nobility with such a surplus of children that many/most fell down the ladder into the peasantry and this continued for a long time. The result is that most of the the "common" people with English ancestry can trace their lineage back to some noble or other. 

Obviously the renaissance was quite a bit earlier but the positive direction was there. It goes the opposite way today so I dont see some fundamental shift to leisure lifestyle creating a bunch of poets and men of science. Even among those who claim those titles today we largely have imposters.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

wil14 said:


> The biggest difference between then and today is that the average IQ was increasing due to eugenic pressures (wealthy had many children that survived, poor had a high child mortality rate) and peaked in the Victorian era with the average person on the street having a 120 IQ if using today as the baseline 100. Basically half the people walking around were geniuses by today's standard in Victorian times.
> 
> You essentially had nobility with such a surplus of children that many/most fell down the ladder into the peasantry and this continued for a long time. The result is that most of the the "common" people with English ancestry can trace their lineage back to some noble or other.


The same thing is happening today where the well-to-do, and those making sacrifices in other areas, are sending their kids to private schools, and the masses are getting shafted by government ran public schools. Plus, that gap grew even wider as public schools closed and many private schools were open during the China flu.

Queue SJW from MI


----------



## wil14 (Sep 13, 2020)

HDRider said:


> The same thing is happening today where the well-to-do, and those making sacrifices in other areas, are sending their kids to private schools, and the masses are getting shafted by government ran public schools. Plus, that gap grew even wider as public schools closed and many private schools were open during the China flu.
> 
> Queue SJW from MI


The problem though is that those who make sacrifices and are clever will have 1-2 children and both parents working to make it happen. So you have 2 people than in the next generation make 1.5 new people. The most unfortunate though will continue to breed unencumbered by any kind of natural limitations. 

I am not suggesting anything change. I'm just saying that the movie Idiocracy wasn't far from the mark. In earlier times 1/3 of children due either to the parent's lack of care or genetic weakness would fail to reach adulthood. Obviously this is terrible but even on the farm you know that you don't just randomly keep every single bull and let it breed and then breed the animals that are ill tempered and need constant medication to stay alive. I know that sounds bad and I'm not suggesting we change anything with people or limit freedom but if we do not, the result is predictable.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

wil14 said:


> The biggest difference between then and today is that the average IQ was increasing due to eugenic pressures (wealthy had many children that survived, poor had a high child mortality rate) and peaked in the victorian era with the average person on the street having a 120 IQ if using today as the baseline 100. Basically half the people walking around were geniuses by today's standard in victorian times.
> 
> You essentially had nobility with such a surplus of children that many/most fell down the ladder into the peasantry and this continued for a long time. The result is that most of the the "common" people with English ancestry can trace their lineage back to some noble or other.
> 
> Obviously the renaissance was quite a bit earlier but the positive direction was there. It goes the opposite way today so I dont see some fundamental shift to leisure lifestyle creating a bunch of poets and men of science. Even among those who claim those titles today we largely have imposters.


So you don't think the Internet with all the knowledge of the world at our fingertips will lead to massive innovation in most areas of our lives? I see the Internet to be the Gutenberg Press on steroids.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> So you don't think the Internet with all the knowledge of the world at our fingertips will lead to massive innovation in most areas of our lives? I see the Internet to be the Gutenberg Press on steroids.


I admire your ability to remain optimistic, when all evidence points the other way









U.S. daily time spent playing games by age 2019 | Statista


On average, people aged 15 to 24 years in the United States spent 39 minutes per day playing games in 2019.




www.statista.com


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

MoonRiver said:


> So you don't think the Internet with all the knowledge of the world at our fingertips will lead to massive innovation in most areas of our lives? I see the Internet to be the Gutenberg Press on steroids.


A whole generation grew up with internet and now we have cancel culture. 

They don't do to YouTube to learn how to fix a car, they go to learn how to play games.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

If youtube goes away, or gores web crashes, then society is lost. Who would have believed in an age where common knowledge no longer was common, and finding a book, let alone reading it became an obstacle.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)




----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

MoonRiver said:


> So you don't think the Internet with all the knowledge of the world at our fingertips will lead to massive innovation in most areas of our lives? I see the Internet to be the Gutenberg Press on steroids.


When you make an internet search, you're given a list of several million sites on the subject, listed in order of how frequently they're clicked on by the public (after appropriate left wing editing)-- not in order of quality of info, let alone veracity....Then you click on the first 1 -3 sites and get one page, maybe 4 paragraphs, of info, and for the vast majority of people, the inquiry is over.

..As opposed to an old fashioned library search where you find & read several 1000 page books with 20 pages of references (that should be read also).

Why do you think it has been so easy to convince the Under -30 crowd that GW is "real?"


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mreynolds said:


> A whole generation grew up with internet and now we have cancel culture.
> 
> They don't do to YouTube to learn how to fix a car, they go to learn how to play games.


Then why does Jordan Peterson have 3.5 million subscribers?
Why do Ted Talks have 18.9 million subscribers and over 2 billion views?
Why does Khan Academy have over 30 million students using the platform a month?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> I admire your ability to remain optimistic, when all evidence points the other way
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When I was that age I spent hours playing pool and pinball. Kids today are slackers.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> When I was that age I spent hours playing pool and pinball. Kids today are slackers.


Some will make good ditch diggers, (oh I forgot, that is for illegals), some will get government assistance.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

doc- said:


> When you make an internet search, you're given a list of several million sites on the subject, listed in order of how frequently they're clicked on by the public (after appropriate left wing editing)-- not in order of quality of info, let alone veracity....Then you click on the first 1 -3 sites and get one page, maybe 4 paragraphs, of info, and for the vast majority of people, the inquiry is over.
> 
> ..As opposed to an old fashioned library search where you find & read several 1000 page books with 20 pages of references (that should be read also).
> 
> Why do you think it has been so easy to convince the Under -30 crowd that GW is "real?"


If you read 1000 page books you are 1 in a million. I have 1 book that has about 1000 pages and I can't figure out how to read it. It's too heavy to hold it and read it. It takes 2 hands just to pick it up. When I was in college, I would drive to Williamsburg to a bookstore near William and Mary and buy the book summaries. That's how I finally passed French. When we were assigned a book in French to read, I would go buy the translation. Think how many hours I could have saved if the Internet was around.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> Then why does Jordan Peterson have 3.5 million subscribers?
> Why do Ted Talks have 18.9 million subscribers and over 2 billion views?
> Why does Khan Academy have over 30 million students using the platform a month?


Algorithms. 
Prescribed and engineered.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

If our Government followed the Constitution there would be no need to raise taxes. The Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to spend tax money on education, welfare, disaster relief, foreign aid, or housing. But spending tax money doesn't have anything to do with spending within our means. It is all about getting reelected.


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

MoonRiver said:


> When I was that age I spent hours playing pool and pinball. Kids today are slackers.



Ha ha


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

MoonRiver said:


> Then why does Jordan Peterson have 3.5 million subscribers?
> Why do Ted Talks have 18.9 million subscribers and over 2 billion views?
> Why does Khan Academy have over 30 million students using the platform a month?


Back in the Renaissance how many were getting a fixed amount of mailbox money? For doing nothing at all?

Zero. 

They had to get creative to eat. 

How many baby boomers are painting the Sistine chapel? 

Not many. Many are working well into the 80's. 

Now, of everyone lost their jobs, did not get mailbox money, then we would have another renaissance. After the riots anyway.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mreynolds said:


> Back in the Renaissance how many were getting a fixed amount of mailbox money? For doing nothing at all?
> 
> Zero.
> 
> ...


Does the name de Medici ring a bell?


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

De Medici probably not a baby boomer.....


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

MoonRiver said:


> Does the name de Medici ring a bell?


I don't know, was he the bell master?

Medici was not there patron of everyone. Only the select few that are gifted and driven in the areas he was interested in. The government is only interested in votes. 

There are modern day De Medici's. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and thousands of others. They will invest in areas that interest them same as Medici.

The government will just throw money around willy nilly and see what sticks in the wall.


----------



## jamesday (Jan 5, 2021)

How we can give trillions to bail out banks and wall street and never offer 15.00 an hour to American workers?


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

jamesday said:


> How we can give trillions to bail out banks and wall street and never offer 15.00 an hour to American workers?


Hey HF.


----------



## jamesday (Jan 5, 2021)

Hiro said:


> Hey HF.


Hmmm HF? hoemstead farmer?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

jamesday said:


> How we can give trillions to bail out banks and wall street and never offer 15.00 an hour to American workers?


Higher tax intake is precisely why they want to raise the wage. It's not because they care about any of us little people.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

jamesday said:


> How we can give trillions to bail out banks and wall street and never offer 15.00 an hour to American workers?


A federally mandated hourly wage has one and only one purpose. To get unions to vote a certain way.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

jamesday said:


> How we can give trillions to bail out banks and wall street and never offer 15.00 an hour to American workers?


Stop giving trillions to bail out banks and wall street.


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

jamesday said:


> How we can give trillions to bail out banks and wall street and never offer 15.00 an hour to American workers?


Two wrongs do not make a right, still.

BTW: Just because Billy did it, does not make it okay for you to do it either.

AND, Jordan Peterson, great guy, we could all learn from him.😀


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

jamesday said:


> How we can give trillions to bail out banks and wall street and never offer 15.00 an hour to American workers?


I did not do, nor would I do, either of those things.


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

MoonRiver said:


> If you read 1000 page books you are 1 in a million. I have 1 book that has about 1000 pages and I can't figure out how to read it. It's too heavy to hold it and read it. It takes 2 hands just to pick it up. When I was in college, I would drive to Williamsburg to a bookstore near William and Mary and buy the book summaries. That's how I finally passed French. When we were assigned a book in French to read, I would go buy the translation. Think how many hours I could have saved if the Internet was around.



I was an engineer on container ships

Often, when I went into town to buy books to read while at sea I would buy the larger books (given I found interest in them) because I got more for my money (I suppose they made me tougher too 😀 )_


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa said:


> I was an engineer on container ships
> 
> Often, when I went into town to buy books to read while at sea I would buy the larger books (given I found interest in them) because I got more for my money (I suppose they made me tougher too 😀 )_


Two big books come to mind - The Stand, and Gulag Archipelago 

I was just watching a cargo ship break up at sea.


----------



## Bront (Jan 26, 2021)

poppy said:


> That is simply not true. Tax revenue increased every year over the last 4 years. We didn't lose a dime. We gained. Now if you want to play the liberal math game, you can pretend you are right. They often project how much they expect and if it falls short of their expectations, they count that as a loss. That is fakery at its finest. If you or I estimate our pay will increase by $1000 next year but our boss only gives us a $500 raise, can we deduct that other $500 as a loss on our income taxes?
> 
> *U.S. Tax Revenue by Year*
> Here's a record of income for each fiscal year since 1789. Tax receipts fell off during the recession but started setting new records by FY 2013.6
> ...











US lost more tax revenue than any other developed country in 2018 due to Trump tax cuts, new report says


The U.S. tax-to-GDP ratio fell the most of any OECD member country in 2018, according to a new report released Thursday.




www.cnbc.com


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

HDRider said:


> Two big books come to mind - The Stand, and Gulag Archipelago
> 
> I was just watching a cargo ship break up at sea.


The Stand was the only book that I got over 50 pages in and put down never intending to finish. It bugged me for a few months, picked it back up and I enjoyed it immensely once I realized there really would be a protagonist somewhere in the mix, whether they survived or not wasn't the point. It just got frustrating having 8-10 pages of character development only for them to keel over one page later. But, I understood better as it went on why King did it that way.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Hiro said:


> The Stand was the only book that I got over 50 pages in and put down never intending to finish. It bugged me for a few months, picked it back up and I enjoyed it immensely once I realized there really would be a protagonist somewhere in the mix, whether they survived or not wasn't the point. It just got frustrating having 8-10 pages of character development only for them to keel over one page later. But, I understood better as it went on why King did it that way.


Many of those characters were killed off just as you got to know them. Poor Harold and Nadine, they had bad endings.
But King does that in most of his stories, you really get to know a character only for them to end up getting run over, exiting while everyone else is asleep, getting stuck by frozen blades of grass, etc.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Danaus29 said:


> Many of those characters were killed off just as you got to know them. Poor Harold and Nadine, they had bad endings.
> But King does that in most of his stories, you really get to know a character only for them to end up getting run over, exiting while everyone else is asleep, getting stuck by frozen blades of grass, etc.


I have read many of his works and it was the rapid and early proliferation of the characters' demise that got frustrating. But, if you muddled through the first 100 pages it was for a purpose and a fine piece of literature, imho.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Have you read _Cell_? The beginning is much the same as in _The Stand_. Lots of minor characters getting killed off in the beginning, then major characters up to nearly the end. _The Stand_ was much better, IMO.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Danaus29 said:


> Have you read _Cell_? The beginning is much the same as in _The Stand_. Lots of minor characters getting killed off in the beginning, then major characters up to nearly the end. _The Stand_ was much better, IMO.


I have not read any of his post 2000 or so works. I don't believe that I will orbit the sun long enough to finish my to do list or to read list.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I had free time and no other reading material. Took me a couple hours, about the time for 3 of my daughters doctor appointments.

I want to read _Cujo_, eventually, if I can find it at a thrift store. The movie was good, the books are usually better.


----------

