"We need about 30% more revenue to balance the budget right now"
I think it's closer to 50%, and that's just for the current year's deficit, with no repayment of the accumulated debt principal. At least that's not mathematically impossible for now; twenty years of entitlement growths later though, who knows.
"Anything wrong with [work-for-welfare]?"
Dunno; the left generally hates it, which is a good sign:-). It'd have to pay below-minimum-wage to meet your criteria of not competing with the private sector.
"Well, the general idea is that you keep the tax rates the same..."
You might want to toy with the numbers available to see if anything like this scheme could accomplish the Keynesian (?) goal of budgetary surplus during non-recession times (to pay down/back the debts accured during past recessions), to see what kind of actual tax rates this would require. I would not be shocked if it resulted in mathematically impossible, let alone economically intolerable ones.
"The basic idea is that you set pay scales for the 'federal job program'(FJP) at sufficiently below market that they want private work"
"the 'spending cuts' I'd make during a boom time is that federal type... infrastructure would slow down. I'd also slow down military..."
Would only that, plus tolerable tax increases, conceivably be sufficient to put the feds into a budget surplus -- without choking a presumed economic boom into a recession? Are you aware of any CBO or whatnot war-gaming of this?
"I think that the government should shift between deficit spending and a surplus in counterpoint to the private economy"
For how many years during the last century, did such a "counterpoint" policy actually result in a surplus? What government spending cuts would you agitate for over the next 10-20 years, to get a surplus budget, in non-recession times? Do you believe we are currently in a recession? (Are you a Keynesian only during recessions?)
"If my taxes jump to 40%, but in exchange health care an all education was free I would be fine with that becasue it has value to myself, and more importantly, society as a whole."
How do you figure such math could possibly work? An extra 20% of your income that you can't spend on your own education/health care, but the government would spend on you *and society as a whole*? How can you come out materially ahead?
They do talk a good game. The "patriotic millionaires" were so patriotic about wanting to pay extra taxes, that all of their voluntary contributions, plus that of every other US taxpayer with similar inclination, is coming to apprx. $3 million for the whole year. Pretend-crediting that amount solely to the ~200 self-identified "members", that's $15000 of generosity per patriotic millionaire. Gee, thanks a lot, guys.
There's this risk in bringing in terms like "immoral and unjust" into any discussion of taxation. It is way too easy for someone else to argue the opposite position upon the same basis.
If you bring in value-for-money arguments like insurance, OK, but then you also ignite the ire of those who point out to what extent governments perform wealth-transfer, where the value of government to some class of entities is net highly negative -- quite possibly immoral and unjust.
"And some folks believe they should get a lot while giving very little."
Righto. So what it sounds like you're proposing is a cost-benefit balance for taxpayers-vs-government, so basically people get back in some sort of essential service just as much as they paid in.
"The thing I hate about these comments, is the reverse is exactly true as well."
That's mighty clever, but no one was asserting anything contrary. They are both dangerous, potentially disabling or lethal. That's why the police are trained in applying the minimal force required that's consistent with the threat.
Slashdot Mirror
"We need about 30% more revenue to balance the budget right now"
I think it's closer to 50%, and that's just for the current year's deficit, with no repayment of the accumulated debt principal. At least that's not mathematically impossible for now; twenty years of entitlement growths later though, who knows.
"Anything wrong with [work-for-welfare]?"
Dunno; the left generally hates it, which is a good sign :-). It'd have to pay below-minimum-wage to meet your criteria of not competing with the private sector.
"Well, the general idea is that you keep the tax rates the same..."
You might want to toy with the numbers available to see if anything like this scheme could accomplish the Keynesian (?) goal of budgetary surplus during non-recession times (to pay down/back the debts accured during past recessions), to see what kind of actual tax rates this would require. I would not be shocked if it resulted in mathematically impossible, let alone economically intolerable ones.
"The basic idea is that you set pay scales for the 'federal job program'(FJP) at sufficiently below market that they want private work"
That sounds like work-for-welfare.
Thank you for your answers.
"the 'spending cuts' I'd make during a boom time is that federal type ... infrastructure would slow down. I'd also slow down military ..."
Would only that, plus tolerable tax increases, conceivably be sufficient to put the feds into a budget surplus -- without choking a presumed economic boom into a recession? Are you aware of any CBO or whatnot war-gaming of this?
"I think that the government should shift between deficit spending and a surplus in counterpoint to the private economy"
For how many years during the last century, did such a "counterpoint" policy actually result in a surplus? What government spending cuts would you agitate for over the next 10-20 years, to get a surplus budget, in non-recession times? Do you believe we are currently in a recession? (Are you a Keynesian only during recessions?)
"If my taxes jump to 40%, but in exchange health care an all education was free I would be fine with that becasue it has value to myself, and more importantly, society as a whole."
How do you figure such math could possibly work? An extra 20% of your income that you can't spend on your own education/health care, but the government would spend on you *and society as a whole*? How can you come out materially ahead?
They do talk a good game. The "patriotic millionaires" were so patriotic about wanting to pay extra taxes, that all of their voluntary contributions, plus that of every other US taxpayer with similar inclination, is coming to apprx. $3 million for the whole year. Pretend-crediting that amount solely to the ~200 self-identified "members", that's $15000 of generosity per patriotic millionaire. Gee, thanks a lot, guys.
According to that gang, the "fair share" from a rich person is always "more, more, more".
You are welcome to contribute to government treasuries any amount you like. Don't expect your neighbours to be quite so cheerful.
There's this risk in bringing in terms like "immoral and unjust" into any discussion of taxation. It is way too easy for someone else to argue the opposite position upon the same basis.
If you bring in value-for-money arguments like insurance, OK, but then you also ignite the ire of those who point out to what extent governments perform wealth-transfer, where the value of government to some class of entities is net highly negative -- quite possibly immoral and unjust.
"And some folks believe they should get a lot while giving very little."
Righto. So what it sounds like you're proposing is a cost-benefit balance for taxpayers-vs-government, so basically people get back in some sort of essential service just as much as they paid in.
Am I receiving your implication clearly?
"Some folks have this fantasy that you can get everything for nothing."
Some folks wish they got a lot less from government.
Some folks have this fantasy that they are entitled to someone else's money.
It must be nice to imagine being emperor of the world.
Might try asking Jimmy Carter, he probably knows this kind of stuff.
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/76/76ocarter.phtml
I'll let you know right after I try it.
You might have to wait a while - a lifetime, give or take.
"inside your ass..."
Strange, that has never happened to me.
To see how free information wants to be, just wait till other naughty objects show up in thingiverse.
It's called reading between the lines, and an (apparently futile?) effort at humor -- or is that humour.
You are welcome to send a bonus payment to your local electricity provider, if that will ease your guilt.
"The thing I hate about these comments, is the reverse is exactly true as well."
That's mighty clever, but no one was asserting anything contrary.
They are both dangerous, potentially disabling or lethal.
That's why the police are trained in applying the minimal force required that's consistent with the threat.
"[manhandling] would have caused a hell of a lot more long-term injury to her than simply getting tazed would."
It's not as though anyone has died from being tazed before.
Oh wait.
(ones == constitutions, sorry)
Supposedly even their 1971 and 2011 ones were subservient to sharia ("the principal source of legislation").
Considering that in sharia, blasphemy (and so many other acts) can be punished with death, he got off light.
"Yes, that's really quite upsetting. ... "
Yup.
"should I be cheering Google ... or should I be upset ..."
Dunno, how about neither.
"But it currently seems that people who have enough money can completely avoid having to pay taxes on most of it."
(Are you confusing wealth and income? Are you confusing tax rates and tax amounts?)
"should I be angry at them for using their wealth to shift more of the burden onto me?"
You might start by being angry at the size of the burden.