Dem Robert Rubin - "We must raise taxes"

Quote from Artie21:

Because those guys are losers who make almost nothing. They can't afford a sanitary napkin once a month.
More...

I'm not only interested in what is best for me. I'm interested in what is best for the greatest number of people. Those are the conditions when I will benefit the most.

Suppose that tax revenue to the federal government was lowered to 5% per wage earner.

And suppose each state in the union had to make up for such low federal tax.

Suppose some states had nearly 95% tax on earnings but provided food, clothing, shelter, etc.

Suppose some states had 10% tax on earnings, but you decided to buy your own food, clothing, shelter, etc.

Which states would most people move to?

Which states would excel economically?

Which states would more people benefit with a higher standard of living?
 
Quote from FightTheFuture:

Suppose some states had nearly 95% tax on earnings but provided food, clothing, shelter, etc.

Suppose some states had 10% tax on earnings, but you decided to buy your own food, clothing, shelter, etc.
More...
Suppose some states would not have any tax at all and consequently would not have any roads, police, fire depts, schools etc. Would you move there?

Your extreme examples are absurd, have your ever heard of straw man arguments? No one is collecting or planning to collect 95% tax and provide food. You should come up with realistic scenarios if you want your argument to be taken seriously. For example, would you pay $100 a year in extra taxes to fix all roads in your state or you'd prefer to save the money and deal with potholes, flat tires, excessive wear to your vehicle and traffic jams wasting your time and your gas. All these problems will easily cost you thousands of dollars a year not to mention lost time - all because you were penny-wise and saved $100 in taxes.
 
Quote from dddooo:

Suppose some states would not have any tax at all and consequently would not have any roads, police, fire depts, schools etc. Would you move there?
_______________________________________________

You bet. If the roads don't get fixed then at some point the people affected will figure out a way to fix them. We already maintain our own roads.(toll roads, private contractors for maintenance etc.). You can bet that it will be done a lot more efficiently than by big government. I lived in a state that sold off the maintenance contracts to private firms and then only had state paid supervisors or quality overseers. It was great and way more cost efficient.

I have also lived nearly all of my life where there were no police or they were so far away they were totally ineffective. Armed citizens always prevent more crime than police anyway. I have a world of experience in this area so crap answers are worthless.

No fire dept is only a problem in cities. In rural areas there are volunteer depts. and they always burn down anyway so insure and start over.

No schools? Ever heard of the home school movement? Also volunteer private schools etc.
More...
 
Suppose some states would not have any tax at all and consequently would not have any roads, police, fire depts, schools etc. Would you move there?
dddooo
________________________________________________

You want a partial list of programs and departments that could be eliminated.

1. BLM - turn management of federal lands over to the much more efficient and effective state lands departments. Slaughter all the excess "wild" feral horses that the BLM spends $40,000 per day for private pasture because they can't get rid of the excess and unwanted horses.

2. US Forest Service- same as BLM state forestry depts are in existence and much more efficient.

3. US Wildlife Service - already a duplication of state programs.

4. Dept. of Education - local control and no federal meddling.

We need the military, judges, police for the cities, border control and the rest is padded waste. Most of these suggestions are already on the table in many western states.
 
Notice how very, very few in government are behind a flat tax proposal?

A big fat tax on luxury items could easily solve revenue problems.

The taxes on cigarettes constitute what portion of the final price?

The taxes on booze constitute what portion of the final price? (More than just sales tax on booze).

How about the taxes on gasoline? When we pay at the pump, what percentage is tax?


And gasoline is an essential, and for someone addicted to fags and booze it is nearly an essential...yet they pay it.

Yet some wealthy cat can buy a jet and pay only sales tax....and no sales tax in Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon....these are the five states that currently do not impose general sales taxes at the state level.
 
Quote from Doubter:
More...

You bet. If the roads don't get fixed then at some point the people affected will figure out a way to fix them.
It happened before when roads did not exist, the people affected did figure out a way to build/fix them - they hired the government to do that. Why do you think governments all over the world in all free democratic countries control public roads? Because people in all those countries after centuries of trials and errors have overwhelmingly concluded that this matter is better left to the government.


I lived in a state that sold off the maintenance contracts to private firms and then only had state paid supervisors or quality overseers. It was great and way more cost efficient.
Absolutely, your local government collects taxes, hires private contractors to do the job, supervises them and pays them with your tax dollars. I hope you finally understand the role of the government, the role of taxation and the choice you have - either you pay taxes and get your roads fixed, or you don't.


No schools? Ever heard of the home school movement? Also volunteer private schools etc.
Yeah I heard of it. One out of a hunderd households will be willing to do that, the rest want public schools. That's why public schools exist, because 99% of the population want them and is more than willing to pay for them via taxes instead of going the homeschooling route. That's why all those government services and programs exist, because a majority (often overwhelming majority) of the population wants them.
 
The idea of common good to the republicans, is when all members of the country club get a new greens keeper...

Quote from dddooo:

You bet. If the roads don't get fixed then at some point the people affected will figure out a way to fix them.
It happened before when roads did not exist, the people affected did figure out a way to build/fix them - they hired the government to do that. Why do you think governments all over the world in all free democratic countries control public roads? Because people in all those countries after centuries of trials and errors have overwhelmingly concluded that this matter is better left to the government.


I lived in a state that sold off the maintenance contracts to private firms and then only had state paid supervisors or quality overseers. It was great and way more cost efficient.
Absolutely, your local government collects taxes, hires private contractors to do the job, supervises them and pays them with your tax dollars. I hope you finally understand the role of the government, the role of taxation and the choice you have - either you pay taxes and get your roads fixed, or you don't.
More...
 
It happened before when roads did not exist, the people affected did figure out a way to build/fix them - they hired the government to do that. Why do you think governments all over the world in all free democratic countries control public roads? Because people in all those countries after centuries of trials and errors have overwhelmingly concluded that this matter is better left to the government.
_________________________________________

Then why doesn't the federal government also do the construction of those federal highways? Then you would have lazy do-nothing bureaucrats building the highways and never finishing. Also nearly all highways are state maintained which is much more efficient than federal maintenance. I am not saying we don't need highways we just need to build and maintain them as cost effectively as possible and through big federal government is not the way. Nearly all of my proposals don't entirely eliminate the needed program just shift the responsibility to a more local, responsive, and efficient entity. Where private contracting for highway maintenance has been tried they won't go back. If it works for construction then it can work for maintenance. The bidding process sure beats the lazy worthless federal slugs.
 
Yeah I heard of it. One out of a hundred households will be willing to do that, the rest want public schools. That's why public schools exist, because 99% of the population want them and is more than willing to pay for them via taxes instead of going the homeschooling route. That's why all those government services and programs exist, because a majority (often overwhelming majority) of the population wants them.
dddooo
______________________________________________

After years on a school board we refused federal funds because of the strings (usually involving social engineering) attached. We did without some things but overall kept or costs per student well below those of surrounding districts accepting federal funding. In our house we home schooled and the percentage in our area was much higher than 1%. Those home schooled students cleaned the clocks of the dullard public schoolers. One public school in our area every single teacher that had kids of their own sent them to private schools. They knew that they didn't want that public crap for their own kids.
 
Quote from Doubter:
More...

Then why doesn't the federal government also do the construction of those federal highways? Then you would have lazy do-nothing bureaucrats building the highways and never finishing.
straw man argument


we just need to build and maintain them as cost effectively as possible
I find it hard to believe that anyone (republican/dem/liberal/kkk member etc) can disagree with that.


big federal government is not the way.
There is a role for local government and there is a role for federal government, even roads need to be planned and coordinated on a federal level, otherwise we'd have complete chaos.

Nearly all of my proposals don't entirely elimate the needed program just shift the responsibility to a more local, responsive, and efficient entity.
I don't think anyone is against this in principle, this is a very valid issue to debate but this thread is about tax hikes, you're upset that the dems want to raise federal taxes. Correct me if I am wrong but are you saying that if your democratic state govenment wanted to raise state taxes by the same percent - you would not have any problem with that? BTW the chances are you're going to be a net loser. I am in NJ, we get back about 0.70 - 0.80 cents for every dollar we pay in federal taxes. If you're in a red state chances are you're getting back $1.10 - $1.50 for every federal tax dollar you pay.

Where privatye contracting for highway maintenance has been tried they won't go back. If it works for construation then it can work for maintenance. The bidding process sure beats the lazy worthless federal slugs.
Another straw man argument. I never said the job needs to be done by government employees, this is not government's role.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top