Damn taxes!!!..Now with new and improved BOAT picture!!!

[CAHotRodBoy]

I edited this because I don't really care about what I wrote the first time.
I'm just pissed 'cause I had to write a big fat check to the governemnt!
[ August 14, 2003, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: CAHotRodBoy ]

[N:ck]

CAHotRodBoy:
...Why do I have to support welfare moms, drug addicts, the just plain lazy?Because you're apparently fooled by the conservatives' stereotypes (which seem to be their only weapon). Poverty does not equal laziness!
CAHotRodBoy:
...Why don’t we limit the time that these people are eligible for benefits?...We DO, thanks to Bill Clinton!
CAHotRodBoy:
...They can have one year to get back on their feet, after that they are on their own. Why don’t we set up work programs to be eligible. I don’t want to hear the “I have to take care of my kids” excuse. You want to take care of kids? Great, you can work in the day care center, we will pay you for that. The other people can bring their kids there while they work (repairing roads, do admin work, learning a skill….Hell, they can even work at DMV..can’t be any worse than what we’ve got there now!). Wouldn’t that be better than just continually giving them free money (mine and yours)? My dad has proposed this, but your fellow conservatives don't seem to like the idea! Check out some of these other threads to read more about it.
I think we're mostly in agreement! I don't agree that welfare recipients, for the most part, are lazy; however, both my dad and I agree with you that welfare should be a work and education program rather than free money!
[ August 14, 2003, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: N:ck ]

[N:ck]

Also, taxes pay for more than just welfare. I think you'll agree that those living in extreme poverty have more important things to worry about (like meeting their basic needs as human beings) than helping pay as much for that new traffic signal down the street or city hall as a rich guy does!

[CAHotRodBoy]

Oops, too late on the edit!
N:ck:
CAHotRodBoy:
...Why do I have to support welfare moms, drug addicts, the just plain lazy?Because you're apparently fooled by the conservatives' stereotypes (which seem to be their only weapon). Poverty does not equal laziness!
This is not always a stereotype. I've seen it with my own eyes. I think you should say "poverty does not ALWAYS equal laziness" but a lot of times it does. I came from poverty but worked hard to overcome it. Others did not and are still back there (east coast) in poverty. They are lazy. They had as much oportunity as I. I know you are young and may not have had the oportunity to see and meet some of these lazy people. And some of the young girls that keep having kids because they will get more welfare $$$. I am 47 yeors old, experienced and well traveled and not easily fooled (but I do have an open mind)!
CAHotRodBoy:
...Why don’t we limit the time that these people are eligible for benefits?...We DO, thanks to Bill Clinton!
Great! Can you show me (legitamit) documentation on this? I have a hard time believing that hard core liberals would go for this. What is the time limit set to? What happens when the time limit is up?
CAHotRodBoy:
...They can have one year to get back on their feet, after that they are on their own. Why don’t we set up work programs to be eligible. I don’t want to hear the “I have to take care of my kids” excuse. You want to take care of kids? Great, you can work in the day care center, we will pay you for that. The other people can bring their kids there while they work (repairing roads, do admin work, learning a skill….Hell, they can even work at DMV..can’t be any worse than what we’ve got there now!). Wouldn’t that be better than just continually giving them free money (mine and yours)? My dad has proposed this, but your fellow conservatives don't seem to like the idea! Check out some of these other threads to read more about it.
I think we're mostly in agreement! I don't agree that welfare recipients, for the most part, are lazy; however, both my dad and I agree with you that welfare should be a work and education program rather than free money! Okay, I'd like to see documentation of this too. What conservatives disagreed and was it because there were other riders attached that didn't make sense or was this issue stand a lone?
Thanks for your reply.

[CAHotRodBoy]

N:ck:
Also, taxes pay for more than just welfare. I think you'll agree that those living in extreme poverty have more important things to worry about (like meeting their basic needs as human beings) than helping pay as much for that new traffic signal down the street or city hall as a rich guy does! Absolutly! I mentioned that in my post (the other things taxes go for). The poor should be worried about getting themselves together so they can get employed and get out of extreem poverty. Look, I realize some people need indefinate help. But there are many, many others that are getting a free ride on my dime. I probaly paid more in taxes for 2002 than you have made your whole life! That's not a put down, but it puts it in perspective of your young age and not understanding how it feels to have to write that big fat check! frown

[TahitiSteve]

I wrote this a while back and think it explains why we pay so much for so little. I don't think it would make a lot of difference whether republicans, democrats, or even libertarians controlled the govermnent, the incentive for incessant growth is built into the system.
Tragedy of the Commons, Why Government will Never get Smaller
This is a tedious explanation, though extremely important. A better writer could surely give a more clear concise explanation. But are there any flaws in my reasoning? Please feel free to expand or rebut.
For a long time I’ve written off incessantly growing government as the product of dishonest politicians. Giving deals to their buddies at the expense of the taxpayer. Realizing that more government power gives incentives to more businesses to pay them off, or to contribute to the candidate who will not hurt their bottom line as bad as the opponent. This is definitely part of it, but even if all the politicians were honest, it’s the big spenders that will rise to the top due to the tragedy of the commons.
The tragedy of the commons asserts that individuals will privatize the benefits of a communal asset, and externalize the costs (that is take the benefits from it, and pass the cost off to the community). The traditional explanation of the problem is about farmers grazing their cattle on communal lands. Tom Bethel in his book “The Noblest Triumph” gives what I think is a better example.
Imagine we have an apartment building with 100 units, all of the same size. To save cost when setting up the utilities in the building only 1 set of meters was installed. Every month the bill for various utilities is divided by 100 and charged to the individual tenants. The problem is that the incentive for frugality in utility usage is completely nullified.
Frugality is effectively punished, and waste is rewarded. Say you cut your utility usage for the year by $300 by using little heat, or air conditioning, and always shutting off lights when not in use. You really did deny yourself $300 worth of utilities, suffered through the heat and the cold, but for your sacrifice you saved yourself a total of 3 dollars. All the other tenants also save $3 due to your frugality. Do you think many tenants will make the choice of being frugal? No, they will all realize that utility usage only costs them 1/100th of the market value, so usage will skyrocket. Utility usage for the building will be far higher than in a building with individual meters (i.e. where utility costs are privatized).
A more extreme example would be a group of 100 people pooling the cost of buying their cars. Were I a member of that group, I would go out and buy a Lambourghini tomorrow, what the hell it only costs me ~$3000. The problem is everyone else would realize the same thing and we all go broke.
How does this apply to government spending and our politicians? Lets make a simplified hypothetical model of the country and its population. Assume we have 100 million people in the country:
100 million people in the country
10 States of 10 million people.
10 cities (per state) of 1 million people.
10 localities (per city) of 100,000 people
Your locality is in need of a new sewer system, which will cost about 10 million dollars($100 per head). Your local politicians find a way to push the cost off to the City, saving their constituents 90% on the sewer system($10 per head for the entire city). Unfortunately every other locality will likely have an equivalent problem to push off on the city, which will eat up that 90% savings to your locality. So it’s a wash. It would have cost the same amount either way.
The problem is that since your locality is only paying for 10% of their improvements the incentive for every locality is to make 10 times more improvements. ($100 million per locality, 1 billion for the city, $1000 per head) All the communities do this and impoverish themselves. Now we have a real problem, how do we get out of it?
Our new politician John Q. Pennypincher decides the answer is to bring spending back to the locality level. His policies make it through, so now we will pay for our improvements ourselves. Due to bringing them closer to being individualized we realize spending $100 million (1000 per head) is ridiculous and curtail improvements back to $10 million worth($100 per head).
Here is the problem the rest of the communities are still passing the cost of their improvements off on the state. Instead of paying $100 and saving $900 per citizen our locality ends up paying $100 in local taxes and $900 to the state (for all the other localities), we spent the same amount and accomplished only 10% of the improvements of the rest of the city. While those that did not curtail their improvements saved $100 and got all their improvements. Pennypincher will never get re-elected. The community will elect someone who will again pass the cost off to the city.
This scenario is replayed all the way up the line. In this system cutting costs is a benefit to the whole, but punishes any group that does so. The further up the line you can push your expenses, the greater the benefit to your community, and the worse the harm to the entire country.
These incentives make it impossible for any frugal individualist politician to make it to high office. They are weeded out along the way because their policies actually harm whatever community elects them, while at the same time they are the only policies that can benefit the country.
Unfortunately I see no realistic solution. There are 2 ways out, what I see as most likely is government growth continuing incentives driving politicians to spending us further and further into poverty and fascism, till economic collapse, and subsequent restructuring of the government.
The other possibility though I find it highly unlikely is a consensus of the population waking up, realizing that these incentives will lead government to spend us into fascism and collapse. Doing what they can to influence a curtailing of the scope of government, empowering and electing true individualist politicians (as opposed to Republicans who want 1% less govt. than democrats). Finally proactively forcing restrictions on government action and funding. Unfortunately this would take people acting against their short term interests and concentrating on the long term, which is why I find it unlikely.

[N:ck]

CAHotRodBoy, all I can say is read the threads! (One is something like "Democrats linked to Adolf Hitler" and another is "F**kin Conservatives".) Both are in this forum, and in my recollection my dad's plan for the welfare work camps was posted in both and shot down both times by conservatives.

[HighRoller]

More hilarity from Nick...Let's get the facts straight.The republicans were the ones who were in favor of serious welfare reform.Unfortunately Bill Clinton VETOED it.Let me say that again.He VETOED welfare reform,killing the issue.THEN,he and the Democrats cut the proposal roughly in half,reintroduced it,and it passed.(Of course taking credit for it as well.)Then,he introduced extended unemployment and mandatory family leave,thereby growing government while saying he was cutting it!
Now,why is it everyone talks about poverty like it's a disease you get on accident?There are opportunities for EVERYONE in this country.Only those who chose not to work as hard as those who are successful live in poverty.Now,let's talk about the definition of poverty.In a survey,95% of the people who said they were living in poverty also admitted to having one TV and cable or satellite.Over 40% admitted to having 2 or more TV's and one car.25% said they had 2 or more cars.20% said they drive cars they bought new.This is poverty?I think the new definition of poverty today is not having everything you want.
Now,one final thing.I hear all you Democrats whining about how republicans have so much money.Doesn't that mean subscribing to Democrat policies and leadership dooms you to being poor????

[CAHotRodBoy]

Thanks N:ck, but no thanks. I started reading some of those threads but they tend to be very lame, name calling and lack substance. You and your dad may have, in fact posted documentation of what we just spoke but I really don't want to have to read through all the other childishness to find it!
TihitiSteve's explenation is very true (unfortunately). As a result I will probably continue to vote republican and just take advantage of as many tax shelter as I can (new boat = second home interest deduction). I have a roofing business and will push as much through that as possible. I know this boarders on unethicle but the system is so screwed up and I will not do anything illegal. I sold a business once and the buyers financila team performs their due diligance. They srewtinize (sp?) every dime spent and earned. If I could do that with the governemnt I would feel better but that would be a full time job!
Feel free to PM me if you'de like to continue this conversation on a mature and intelectual basis. So far it's been pretty above board.

[CAHotRodBoy]

HighRoller:
You are correct on poverty. I was born in rural Vermont (much like Appalachia) in 1956. More cows in VT then than people! My dad worked hard and gained some success. Then when I left home I did the same and now I am even more successful. Like I said, others back home did not even though they had the same opportunities. Nothing prevented them from elevating their lot in life other than their own work ethic. Some of those people live decent lives with an okay car, food on the table and $ for kid’s college. Some even bought boats! Others did not.
I moved to New Hampshire later on where the state motto is “Life Free Or Die”. This is not just a motto but a way of life for many. NH has no state sales tax or income tax and they don’t have a lot of “entitlement” programs. Most pull their own weight and don’t look for hand outs. When you live in the country, that’s just the way it is. If a family lost their father others step in and help out. We bring food, do chores, donate clothing, baby sit kids so the mom can get a job. Once she starts working she will most likely try to repay those that helped out (of course, it would be refused). Kinda Norman Rockwellish, huh? Well, where do you think Norman Rockwell came from? And yeah, it’s still like that. Of course, the weather sucks 9 months out of the year!
I think if the government gave everyone a 365 day notice, get trained for employment ‘cause the free ride is over in a year, there might, just possibly be a change. The democrats blame the republicans and visa versa, buncha effing babies! . I think the bills need to be written on one line item at a time. No riders, no mass “cover everything so I can get my special interest in there” bills.
Of course that would be like asking lawyers to clean up their own frivolous lawsuits!
[ August 14, 2003, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: CAHotRodBoy ]