I always love how you tax&spend types bring up all of the services that are not the province of the federal government and which in almost every case are not paid for by dollars from federal taxes to support increasing federal taxes. Shall we go through them?
"No tap water." I don't know where you get your water. Mine comes from a system that is owned by my city. It is self supporting through charging its customers via metering. When I lived in Chicago I got water directly from the city, also paid for through metering.
"No public roads." Primarily paid for through local taxes, typically on fuel, as well as road taxes paid by trucking companies and other commercial entities. (The Interstate Highway was paid for by Federal Taxes, at least partially, but 70% were paid for via user fees and most of the rest by vehicle taxes. In other words not from income (either personal or corporate) taxes.
"No public libraries." Typically public libraries are paid for by cities or counties. Again there is no federal tax involvement.
" or public education." Public education is almost entirely paid for by state and local funding, primarily through real estate taxes, one reason funding is so unequal from one locale to the next. Wealthy people have high cost homes and pay higher real estate taxes resulting in better schools. The federal government imposes many unfunded mandates, but provides little in funding (not counting non-education related food subsidies and the like.)
"No firefighters" Provided most commonly by the local city government supported by local taxes. In many areas outside large urban areas volunteer fire departments, which are self supporting, often through fish fries, bake sales, donations, etc. provide fire protection. In a few areas commercial firefighters, that is companies that residents and businesses pay an insurance like fee to, provide fire protection. Again no federal involvement.
and no healthcare. I get my healthcare through my employer as does almost everyone I know who has a job.
"And very weak police," Most police work is done by local police departments, either through a city or township or via a county sheriff's office. While I don't doubt they take advantage of federal grants when they are available most of their funding comes through local taxes.
"mostly at the service of rich." rather than organizations like the FBI and IRS, which under this administration appear to be more at the service of political ideologues on the fringe left than the rich in general.
This is an out and out misrepresentation of the facts. Most libertarians believe that the majority of the burden would disappear if the federal government was limited to operation in the areas it is constitutionally limited to perform. The vastly decreased bureaucracy would then require much less income. The taxation require to support that vastly less amount of income should be raised in a way that requires everyone to contribute, based on the fact that people who have skin in the game care about people (politicians) trying to rig it.
When 50% of the population are net beneficiaries of government payouts rather than net taxpayers they obviously don't care when taxes are raised and they obviously are all for additional benefits.
Some part of the money goes to useful things that society needs. Great parts of money go to support useless things that socety either doesn't need or are actually detrimental to societies well being. That money is thrown away.
Since roads are paid for using primarily local fuel related taxes, and the last time I checked electricity is provided by privately owned utilities in the U.S. I don't see how this touches an any federal taxes that Apple did or did not pay.
Actually this is not true. There are many places in the United States where professional commercial fire companies are used. You pay them ahead of time for fire protection. If your house catches fire they come put it out. If your neighbor's house catches fire who did not pay, they come and make sure your house doesn't catch fire, but let your neighbor's burn.
Also many places in the U.S. have volunteer fire departments. They raise funds for equipment via a variety of methods (including fish fries and bake sales) and all of the labor is volunteer. Sometimes the local government will chip in on equipment or pay a single fire professional to lead the department.
You are making an unwarranted assumption here. That assumption is that you could have prevented most of those prison inmates from being in prison if society had only spent more money on their education. Yet the United States spends more per student than Switzerland, Denmark, Norway or Germany. South Korea spends much less and its students do much better. The problem is not one of money spent on education.
There are many reasons someone might become a member of the prison system, however almost always it concerns the failure to make good choices and to live a disciplined life. People with those traits typically also do badly in schools. As a matter of fact for all the money the U.S. spends on education or results are pretty abominable. We don't do education well, and the reasons we don't do education well have very little to do with how much we spend on education.
Would that be the infrastructure that the billionaire owns in China or the infrastructure that he owns in India?
Do you really think that if Bill Gates wanted to move Microsoft to Brazil or India that he couldn't do it? (I guess it would be Balmer now.) Right now one of the big problems is that companies are moving their infrastructure overseas. At the present time most are leaving their corporate offices in the U.S., but jiggling their books so that their profits aren't listed in the U.S., so they aren't primarily taxed.
Japanese car companies have been doing that for years. The U.S. subsidy pays an almost full price for the car, on the books rather than a wholesale price. By the time it pays for overhead on the books it makes no profit. No profit, no tax. Meanwhile, in these almost full prices all of the profit is skimmed off back to Japan.
That's because when a DOD contractor underbids they can go back to the DOD and get more money. If they were told "Not my problem. We have a contract. Deliver at the contract price or we'll sue," then they'd either deliver at a loss or go out of business. Either way on the NEXT contract the bidder would bid what it actually costs, while still trying to be the lowest and the problem would take care of itself.
I guess you're missing the part where as citizens a group has the right to be opposed to taxation as long as they obey the law, while as a government agency the IRS does not have the right to selectively harass you for being opposed to taxation, as long as you obey the law.
The only problem with your argument is the idea that every appointee to a federal position is somehow a partisan hack who cares more about his political affiliation than about his own personal career or power.
Your assumption is that because a Republican president appoint a particular individual that that individual would not carry out an action because of what...party loyalty? Gee I guess no member of congress elected from a certain party would ever change affiliations and toss the Senate from control of one party to another.
Yes no one lost their tax exempt status, but somehow information given to the IRS from these investigations were leaked to a left leaning media company. No one lost their status, but how many other groups gave up the attempt to file for legitimate tax exempt status because they saw what these groups went through? That's a form of illegal suppressive government action. You don't think that knowing their donations or supporting actions won't be leaked to private politically motivated media might cause some people to decide not to exercise their constitutional right to free speech.
Even more you don't think that if this is allowed to pass without heads rolling that the next Republican president, or his appointees, might not think that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and start investigating MoveOn or Media Matters, or AARP?
About Obama's greater intelligence. You're basing that on? His higher college transcript grades? Wait he won't release those. His successful business career? Wait he never had a position where he actually managed anybody or carried out a business plan. His long distinguished career in government? Wait he never held a committee chair in the Senate, and was only in a federal legislative position for less that 2 years. His entire period of government service prior to his election as president was only about a decade, and for much of that at the local level he voted present rather than yes or no.
Not that Bush was any great mind either. But then I didn't put forward Bush as having any great level of intelligence.
Slashdot Mirror
I always love how you tax&spend types bring up all of the services that are not the province of the federal government and which in almost every case are not paid for by dollars from federal taxes to support increasing federal taxes. Shall we go through them? "No tap water." I don't know where you get your water. Mine comes from a system that is owned by my city. It is self supporting through charging its customers via metering. When I lived in Chicago I got water directly from the city, also paid for through metering. "No public roads." Primarily paid for through local taxes, typically on fuel, as well as road taxes paid by trucking companies and other commercial entities. (The Interstate Highway was paid for by Federal Taxes, at least partially, but 70% were paid for via user fees and most of the rest by vehicle taxes. In other words not from income (either personal or corporate) taxes. "No public libraries." Typically public libraries are paid for by cities or counties. Again there is no federal tax involvement. " or public education." Public education is almost entirely paid for by state and local funding, primarily through real estate taxes, one reason funding is so unequal from one locale to the next. Wealthy people have high cost homes and pay higher real estate taxes resulting in better schools. The federal government imposes many unfunded mandates, but provides little in funding (not counting non-education related food subsidies and the like.) "No firefighters" Provided most commonly by the local city government supported by local taxes. In many areas outside large urban areas volunteer fire departments, which are self supporting, often through fish fries, bake sales, donations, etc. provide fire protection. In a few areas commercial firefighters, that is companies that residents and businesses pay an insurance like fee to, provide fire protection. Again no federal involvement. and no healthcare. I get my healthcare through my employer as does almost everyone I know who has a job. "And very weak police," Most police work is done by local police departments, either through a city or township or via a county sheriff's office. While I don't doubt they take advantage of federal grants when they are available most of their funding comes through local taxes. "mostly at the service of rich." rather than organizations like the FBI and IRS, which under this administration appear to be more at the service of political ideologues on the fringe left than the rich in general.
This is an out and out misrepresentation of the facts. Most libertarians believe that the majority of the burden would disappear if the federal government was limited to operation in the areas it is constitutionally limited to perform. The vastly decreased bureaucracy would then require much less income. The taxation require to support that vastly less amount of income should be raised in a way that requires everyone to contribute, based on the fact that people who have skin in the game care about people (politicians) trying to rig it. When 50% of the population are net beneficiaries of government payouts rather than net taxpayers they obviously don't care when taxes are raised and they obviously are all for additional benefits.
Some part of the money goes to useful things that society needs. Great parts of money go to support useless things that socety either doesn't need or are actually detrimental to societies well being. That money is thrown away.
Since roads are paid for using primarily local fuel related taxes, and the last time I checked electricity is provided by privately owned utilities in the U.S. I don't see how this touches an any federal taxes that Apple did or did not pay.
Actually this is not true. There are many places in the United States where professional commercial fire companies are used. You pay them ahead of time for fire protection. If your house catches fire they come put it out. If your neighbor's house catches fire who did not pay, they come and make sure your house doesn't catch fire, but let your neighbor's burn. Also many places in the U.S. have volunteer fire departments. They raise funds for equipment via a variety of methods (including fish fries and bake sales) and all of the labor is volunteer. Sometimes the local government will chip in on equipment or pay a single fire professional to lead the department.
You are making an unwarranted assumption here. That assumption is that you could have prevented most of those prison inmates from being in prison if society had only spent more money on their education. Yet the United States spends more per student than Switzerland, Denmark, Norway or Germany. South Korea spends much less and its students do much better. The problem is not one of money spent on education. There are many reasons someone might become a member of the prison system, however almost always it concerns the failure to make good choices and to live a disciplined life. People with those traits typically also do badly in schools. As a matter of fact for all the money the U.S. spends on education or results are pretty abominable. We don't do education well, and the reasons we don't do education well have very little to do with how much we spend on education.
Would that be the infrastructure that the billionaire owns in China or the infrastructure that he owns in India? Do you really think that if Bill Gates wanted to move Microsoft to Brazil or India that he couldn't do it? (I guess it would be Balmer now.) Right now one of the big problems is that companies are moving their infrastructure overseas. At the present time most are leaving their corporate offices in the U.S., but jiggling their books so that their profits aren't listed in the U.S., so they aren't primarily taxed. Japanese car companies have been doing that for years. The U.S. subsidy pays an almost full price for the car, on the books rather than a wholesale price. By the time it pays for overhead on the books it makes no profit. No profit, no tax. Meanwhile, in these almost full prices all of the profit is skimmed off back to Japan.
That's because when a DOD contractor underbids they can go back to the DOD and get more money. If they were told "Not my problem. We have a contract. Deliver at the contract price or we'll sue," then they'd either deliver at a loss or go out of business. Either way on the NEXT contract the bidder would bid what it actually costs, while still trying to be the lowest and the problem would take care of itself.
I guess you're missing the part where as citizens a group has the right to be opposed to taxation as long as they obey the law, while as a government agency the IRS does not have the right to selectively harass you for being opposed to taxation, as long as you obey the law.
Yes, but the real questions that divides us is which one is the stupid party and whcih one the evil party.
The only problem with your argument is the idea that every appointee to a federal position is somehow a partisan hack who cares more about his political affiliation than about his own personal career or power. Your assumption is that because a Republican president appoint a particular individual that that individual would not carry out an action because of what...party loyalty? Gee I guess no member of congress elected from a certain party would ever change affiliations and toss the Senate from control of one party to another. Yes no one lost their tax exempt status, but somehow information given to the IRS from these investigations were leaked to a left leaning media company. No one lost their status, but how many other groups gave up the attempt to file for legitimate tax exempt status because they saw what these groups went through? That's a form of illegal suppressive government action. You don't think that knowing their donations or supporting actions won't be leaked to private politically motivated media might cause some people to decide not to exercise their constitutional right to free speech. Even more you don't think that if this is allowed to pass without heads rolling that the next Republican president, or his appointees, might not think that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and start investigating MoveOn or Media Matters, or AARP?
About Obama's greater intelligence. You're basing that on? His higher college transcript grades? Wait he won't release those. His successful business career? Wait he never had a position where he actually managed anybody or carried out a business plan. His long distinguished career in government? Wait he never held a committee chair in the Senate, and was only in a federal legislative position for less that 2 years. His entire period of government service prior to his election as president was only about a decade, and for much of that at the local level he voted present rather than yes or no. Not that Bush was any great mind either. But then I didn't put forward Bush as having any great level of intelligence.