wendersfan

Just a question - I keep reading in these threads about "two major wars", but since, as we've seen in another thread, troop deployment is at most 150,000 for Afghanistan and Iraq <i>combined</i>, can either be called "major"?

mikehunt

no, they get that way by spending within their means and not carrying large amounts of CC debt at high interest rates. they still buy stuff

classicman2

You don't police protection, fire protection, public schools, the military, NIH, and myriad of other services provided by government?

Yeah, you do!

People constantly say they want a smaller government; but, they demand more and more services from the government. Therefore, I conclude they're not being entirely candid whenever they say that they want smaller government.

wendersfan

I want a smaller government, but I'm quite aware that there are certain aspects of government I would not or cannot do without.

Ranger

I'm thinking in terms of what the war is costing us financially, not number of troops. Even if neither Iraq or Afghanistan were major wars, it seems like a bad idea to fiddle with the tax system at this point.

Sex Fiend

That notion of "progressivity" depends an awful lot on the presumption that the wealthy will consume (and therefore assume the tax burden) at a rate directly proportional to their wealth. A sales tax is essentially a voluntary tax: if you don't spend, you're not taxed, and if you do spend, you are taxed at an equal rate across the board (assuming the tax for all goods is fixed). The assumption your argument makes is that simply because the wealthy are better equipped to absorb that tax, they will do so at a rate directly proportional to their wealth, which is fallacious.

Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that simply because the wealthy would be able to spend money when the cost of doing so is higher, they will in fact spend at such a rate that it would proportionally "offset" the tax burden of the middle/lower classes under such a system, essentially evening out the effect of such a tax. In fact, if anything the wealthy would be far less likely to spend more when there is a perceived disincentive in doing so because of a larger sales tax. It most certainly seems unlikely that they will spend at the much higher proportion that would be necessary to make a national sales tax truly "progressive" in any sense.

mikehunt

you can have smaller/cheaper gov't without eliminating police and fire
things like medicaid (ny pays more than ca and tx <b>combined</b>), or the $66 million in state and local tax money that Bass Pro will be getting to come to buffalo. those are just two local examples

wabio

Very interesting point....and a very scary one too. What if, by chance, 85% of the population decides they aren't going to spend caRp this year...? What would we do? Shut down the government?

And I'd hate to see what the consequences would be to the products we buy. Companies might start making items (i.e. cars, lawnmovers, etc.) of lower quality to fuel turnover to increase federal revenue. More people would start buying cheaper products made overseas to offset the cost of the tax leading to an even bigger trade deficit. yada yada yada....I need my Excedrin now.

JasonF

"I want a smaller government, and I think we should make government smaller by getting rid of government services that the other guy uses."

wendersfan

On the contrary, I was mainly referring to government services that are used by almost everyone - things like mail delivery, roads, national defense, etc. I may be a libertarian, but I'm a relatively moderate one.

Ranger

Better. I mean come on, is every government service necessary?

X

Again, I'll refer to my example of how the tax rate increases progressively as consumption above a moderate level increases. The progressivity increases very quickly after you get over the base amount that would be taxed at a zero rate.

And I'll point out the low tax rate rich people can currently pay by again stating the example of Teresa Heinz Kerry. Does she dip into the billion and spend more than her yearly income? I don't know. But it sure looks like she spends a lot. Perhaps enough that a consumption tax would be greater than her current income tax.

Since I doubt that there are many people who make lots of money so they can live like paupers I am open to being proved wrong with the specific examples people here arguing that position will provide. Since this plan is in the early discussion phase I see no reason to dismiss it with pure speculation concerning the spending patterns of the rich. There will be time to get the facts.

However I don't really have a problem with people finding it advantageous to save and invest most of their money instead of blowing it all. That helps everyone by growing the economy and providing jobs.

mikehunt

why can't left wingers understand that many of these "services" shouldn't be gov't run and many others are mismanaged and have waste?
water, sewer, police, fire, medical infastructure (ie building the hospital), roads. I have no problems paying taxes for those
schools: wasteful as the current "solution" to failing grades seems to be throw more money at it
medicaid: benefits should be cut an dco-pays slightly increased as well as not giving any coverage for going to an ER for something that could have been taken care of at a clinic
spending $500,000 in tax money to buy $50,000 in furniture because the salesman has raised millions for you and your friend's election campaigns (local scandal): I have a huge problem with this

classicman2

You live in a society - I understand right-wingers have difficulty sometimes accepting that reality. What you folks to the far right might think is not necessary, the vast majority of folks in the center might believe is necessary.

mosquitobite

Just FYI, I voted for Badnarik.

That's the thing - in the private sector you DO get a choice. Throw it to the government and they LEGALLY can maintain a monopoly. (Heaven help Bill Gates for being so EEEEVIL though )

I WANT CHOICES.

So many government programs are SHIT. They are RUN like SHIT. And they waste money like diarrhea.

Anywhere in the private sector people would be fired for the waste - but not within our lovely government though. It's SOMEONE ELSE'S money they are spending...

tonyc3742

If many of those things were run by private organizations, they would either run more efficiently or go out of business.
Because they're run by the government, a virtual monopoly, they have no motivation or incentive to improve themselves.
Look at the IRS itself. If you call THEIR helplines for help on THEIR tax forms, something like 40% of the time you get the WRONG answer. And of course it's YOUR fault. I work in an office that provides tech support for multimillion dollar medical equipment. If we give the wrong answer 40% of the time, we'd go out of business. As we should.
The government can and should run certain things. Some of those things should be federal and some should be state. But the fed government has got its hands [and our money] in billions of things that have no relevance or important to the nation as a whole.

wendersfan

God bless you, my child.

classicman2

Electric companies, natural gas companies, cable companies, local telephone companies, etc. - all private businesses - are virtual monopolies also.

What was your point again?

mosquitobite

Monopolies only because of government regulation...

Ranger

And/or perhaps greed.

tonyc3742

And they run inefficiently, not reacting to the marketplace, because they've got a government-induced monopoly. Who are two of the quintessential stereotypes of poor service, poor products, and lack of reaction to customer demand? Telecom companies and cable companies. My cable company is much better now than it was when I was growing up. Coincidentally, satellite providers have made great inroads into historically cable-only markets, though the cable co.s have tried to make that as difficult as possible.
Structural monopolies are bad for the consumer. Even worse is when they are government monopolies, or government-sanctioned monopolies.

wendersfan

So, do you think this is why technologies like mobile phones developed faster in places like the UK than the US? When you consider that British Telecom has always been much worse than even Bell Telephone of old, the only open marketplace for personal telecomunications was cellphones, so they were a much more viable consumer alternative earlier for Brits than for Americans. It's a theory.

Ranger

Bureaucracy at its best. It's your job to see that it doesn't get out of hand, looks like you've done a good job there.
millions of tax-payers' money I bet.

I mean, shit, how the hell could it take millions to think up and study this 'plan'? It's so absurd, and this is just one study, also a Congressional committe is even considering conducting a study comparing internet porn to heroin.

The purpose of the IRS is to collect money and find people who do not pay their taxes. How can a federal budget be funded by an anonynous national sales tax? It would be certain to fail.

It's all so ludicrous, it boogles my mind.

solipsta

Interesting. I remember reading about this idea probably a dozen years ago as proposed by the Green Party. Now it's a Republican idea. Hey, either way...

Anyways, wouldn't you find a lot of the uber-wealthy working here, making their money here and then living elsewhere? I might just be really tired, but what would stop this from happening? Other than the commute, of course.

JasonF

If you think networked companies like utilities are monopolies only because of government regulation, think again.

In fact, it's government regulation that allows us to have multiple long distance carriers and multiple cable carriers in a single market.