Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>Furthermore, I spend 60% of my time outside of the US.<<< That passport you use and the international systems for travel are also supported by taxes. Not to mention the military ensures the air and sea are safer for your travels. And international aid and goodwill ensure that the standard of other countries are safer too. Not to mention if you ever got in trouble while out of the US, the consulate and embassy would be there to help you - they are very expensive to run.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Overall, I definitely would prefer if all residential values plummeted much further and pay less property taxes.<< Strangest logic ever. That's like hoping for a massive pay cut or job loss in order to pay less income tax.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>I have not sent kids to school either.<<< But I assume you went to school at one stage? Who do you think paid for that (unless you went to private school all your life?)
Originally Posted By Mr X ***That doesn't matter much to me since I plan on owning a place to live in this general region(northern Calif)from here until my end. Even if I were to sell, then that just means that as long as I stay in the general region whatever I buy would be just as cheap or just as expensive as what I am in now. Overall, I definitely would prefer if all residential values plummeted much further and pay less property taxes*** Way to leave a legacy, dude. You know, your comments are sometimes thought provoking, but I have to agree with Dave on this one. I thought you were smart, too. Seems you can't see the broader ramifications on this one whatsoever, though.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///Police safety/// doesn't mean anything to a person who wants nothing to do with them. I don't trust police. And did you not read what I wrote earlier......I guess not. I have never asked for police assistance. NEXT ///roads/// Ya I use those---- that is what provoked me to use the word 'barely'. ///garbage management/// I pay for that as I stated earlier. Maybe you should revisit what I wrote and read it more carefully. NEXT ///an educated young people to take care of you when you are old/// who said I want to be treated and helped by young people.....not I. And how much education does it take to push a wheel chair, help dress another or assist someone in the bathroom? Besides I don't plan to be here when I am incapacitated. I have a standing agreeement with all my family about this very subject. NEXT ///defence/// Oh like those wasted dollars in Iraq or that asinine idea in the form of a fence along the US's southern border or shakedowns at the airport(yes, I did change my mind about the TSA body checks) --- sorry but I don't need the US's 'defence'. NEXT ///support to the economy/// whatever that means??? ///your own early education/// Nice try, but you don't get that one. My parents did pay taxes(which they should have if they were to send kids to school)for their kid to attend public schools. NEXT ///nicer environment with less people living on the streets///, I've taken in 3 street dwellers over the years. OK,OK one was very short as in 2 nights but another lasted just shy of 3 years. I did my part. Have you ever taken in a homeless person? NEXT ///you could use the library/// guilty as charged----yep I use it from time to time. We do have a rather nice one here. ///if you wished, and the firemen would put out your house fire/// I say let it burn down for my hazard insurance would kick in and I get an all new structure even though my house is already 12 years old. But my house has sprinkler heads in every room---even the walk-in closet at the masters so a burn down is very unlikey. Now if a nice sized quake shook it apart then I'm S.O.O.L.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///That passport you use/// Which I paid $100 or was it $120?? I forgot. ///and the international systems for travel are also supported by taxes./// which I paid year after year ///Not to mention the military ensures the air and sea are safer for your travels./// I paid taxes to the US, more than most so why are you barking again? ///And international aid/// more wasted money ///and goodwill ensure that the standard of other countries are safer too./// I don't see it that way /// Not to mention if you ever got in trouble while out of the US, the consulate and embassy would be there to help you - they are very expensive to run./// Nope. The US consulate can not protect me from local authorities or criminal charges.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>///That passport you use/// Which I paid $100 or was it $120?? I forgot.<< If you hate taxes, move to Mexico. The well off are hardly taxed there at all. Once you live there you might begin to understand that maybe, just maybe, you are getting some bang for your tax dollar in the USA.
Originally Posted By barboy2 I already live in more of a 3rd world country than Mexico. I know Mexico well since I've been to many spots many times over. ///If you hate taxes/// Income taxes are OK as I said earlier. But property taxes are way too high and are levied irrespective of one's income. I paid $28k one year.....isn't that a lot?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I paid $28k one year.....isn't that a lot?<< Depends on the size of the property.
Originally Posted By fkurucz ">>I paid $28k one year.....isn't that a lot?<< Depends on the size of the property." I'm guessing that this is a $2 million + piece of real estate. Nothing is stopping you from moving somewhere less expensive, say in flyover country. Perhaps you are too attached to the Bay Area for all its amenities. Maybe those tax dollars are being spent on something useful after all?
Originally Posted By fkurucz But anyway, to complain about how stiff the taxes are on your mansion while most Americans are falling into the economic abyss has a very Marie Antoinette ring to it. For some reason I am reminded of a story about camels and eyes of needles.
Originally Posted By Mr X ///Police safety/// NEXT ///roads/// Ya I use those---- that is what provoked me to use the word 'barely'. ///garbage management/// NEXT ///an educated young people to take care of you when you are old/// NEXT ///defence/// sorry but I don't need the US's 'defence'. NEXT ///your own early education/// Nice try, but you don't get that one. My parents did pay taxes(which they should have if they were to send kids to school)for their kid to attend public schools. NEXT ///if you wished, and the firemen would put out your house fire/// I say let it burn down You guys smell that? *sniff* What is it? Gas leak? *sniff/sniff* Oh, okay. It's just think, syrupy karma. Pungent stuff.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***///support to the economy/// whatever that means???*** It means that if public services are good in your neck of the woods, afluent citizens and successful businesses will be more likely to want to put roots down there. You know, progress. Like that Walt Disney guy talked about. But apparently you're okay with your town crashing and burning all around, since you don't plan to sell your house anyway. Like I said earlier, way to leave a legacy. ***///And international aid/// more wasted money*** Oh, lordy.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo Exactly. I find it ironic that the conservatives moan and yowl about redistribution of income, while supporting policies that simply redistribute it the other way. The notion would be laughable if it wasn't taken seriously by the MSM.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo It makes me sick, that people are going to suffer because in the UK we are having to make 25% cuts in services because of selfish attitudes of so many. why do people not get that it is better for everyone to give 10 cents thanservice users of important services pay $10. There is substantial evidence that shows well educated and cared for population create more wealth and opportunities for all. In the victorian age where education had to be paid for, one child would cost a family 40% of an average income. That is why state education was established. Currently in the UK, to educate our young people and put in appropriate Social Care, it costs about $75m per 200,000 kids. Saying your parents paid their taxes and that sorted it is bunk.
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^The thing about the very rich dwb is that they are never satiated. They always want more and more wealth, even if it means dismantling the middle class.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf The problem some of us have with taxes is that so much of our money is wasted. While some of us may be heartless bastards, I think most of us "lower tax" advocates would be okay with paying taxes as long as less of that money went to paying for things such as six-figure salaried phantom jobs for political cronies, pointless wars, politically motivated subsidies, incentives for not being productive, outrageously high pensions and benefits for government workers, etc. The best way to pay for needed services is by eliminating waste, not by raising taxes. If taxes need to be cut to get that message across to the politicians, so be it.
Originally Posted By mawnck Waste can't be eliminated. Not when there are humans involved. One of the biggest bogus claims of the right wing is that government-run enterprises are less efficient than privately-run ones. There's just no evidence to back that up. Your typical major corporation has just as much, if not more, corruption and graft in it as any government agency. And lowering their funding to useless levels just makes things worse. Underfunded agencies tend to get REAL inefficient. I'm with you on the wars and the subsidies. Those certainly qualify as wasteful spending. The rest of it isn't nearly as bad as your corporate overlords seem to have convinced you it is.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>One of the biggest bogus claims of the right wing is that government-run enterprises are less efficient than privately-run ones. There's just no evidence to back that up.<<< I cannot speak for the US on this one, but I imagine it is not too different than the UK. One of the biggest expenditures in the public sector compared to the private sector is consultation, evaluation, democracy, and decision making. In a company, a director or board will make a decision, mostly unilaterally. If it works, great, if not, then they are out. In the public sector, it cannot work that way. so far more time and money if spent on thinking through options, getting evidence bases, evaluating whether it will work, then seeking consultation with the public 9usually 3 months) and then taking it through the political process. Many great ideas die because of this, and many people eventually stop trying to change because typically people do not like change, including the tax payers. Therefore, it adds a lot of cost, that if people were empowered and delgated to make decisions, things happen (like JFK or FDR who would go out on a limb). But more often than not, if these studies and consultations were not conducted, the same people who complain about waste would complain about a lack of democratic approach or fool hardy spending. Also, often laws can contradict each other, so a lot of analysis has to go into reviewing them, carrying out equality impact and risk assessments, and then eventually making policy changes, then putting in the infrastructure to discharge them and quality monitor to continue evidence based learning. Most of the public are ignorant of all the things that go on behind the scenes, including companies and individuals using some of the laws to slow down processes or threatening to sue, which makes the sector even more slower and risk averse. It also does not help that many politicians do not really understand the implications of the decisions they are making or declining. so several man years and 1000's of pages are written to brief people. The laws are drawn up in an attempt to be concrete when tested in the courts of law. Every scenario needs to be modelled. the media then say we use too much jargon. If we simplify it, we are accused of trying to hide the truth or not thinking things through (though god forbid people do not want to pay for it). Then add in complaints of expensive consultants who are paid to travel away from their familes, work 18 hour days, worry about this stuff all the time, cross pollinate best of breed learning, read and right all the time, inspire and counsel those who have lost the will and energy, or only know how things are done in their patch, all in the hopes of making a huge difference. In a space where people do not always engage, speak half truths with little knowledge, media pick holes in, bureaucracy and common sentiment slow things down, and sometimes you literly lose the will to live (20% of my colleagues in the industry die before the age of 50). But most of us do it because we want to make a bigger difference, deliver a greater good. Some do it for the money or prestige, but most is becuase they are passionate and intelligent. In the private sector, you can off shore, rip people off, make crazy decisions, and so on, though PLCs on the exchange are nearly as heavily bound as public services, and the main motivation of most is greed. I've works as an exec of a PLc, in the Public Sector and the charity/voluntary sector, and given the choice, I would happily pay my taxes to know people are taken care of, and opportunities are there for all. In the private sector, they do not give a damn about people with some very rare exceptions.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<Waste can't be eliminated. Not when there are humans involved.>> Tell that to Robespierre. A lot of excess spending can be corrected. The public sector has become too bloated, pensions and benefits too costly. The problem is votes are bought in this country through public spending and anyone brave enough to suggest cuts risks losing a lot of votes. And why some think it is just to have the people in the private sector, who pay a lot more out of their own pockets for things like retirement savings and health benefits, also pay for the much better benefits public employees receive. Pension obligations for public employees will continue to suck more and more money away from things such as education and assistance programs. The pension obligations in California alone will be many times greater than the entire annual budget in the near future. No amount of taxes will fix that problem - fiscal restraint is the only way out of this hole.
