Quote of the Day :

"Civilized government is the art of solving the problems we would never have
had if we had remained a tribal society".

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]De la
> part de Russ Smith
> Envoyé : jeudi 4 septembre 2003 22:33
> À : [log in to unmask]
> Objet : [HP3000-L] OT: tax and spend LONG (was Gas Price Whining)
>
>
> Wow.  Some of the responses on this line have been great.  Anywho...
>
> Mike Yawn equated Social Security to a pyramid scheme, and
> from a technical definition in its current incarnation I
> would be hard-pressed to argue against his assessment, but I
> don't think total abandonment is the solution.  Abandoning
> its current form or parts thereof?  Most certainly.  I think
> the problem comes from the same kludge most computer systems
> face after years of modifications.  If you start with a clean
> idea, and implement it relatively well (i.e. meet most of the
> goals of the original request, many of them in a good way,
> some poorly and miss the mark on a small percentage), then
> add and change things over time, what you will have many
> years later will not be pretty.  Hence, SS today is a piece
> of crap.  It's been a sore spot for many politicians and has
> been a rallying cry for many.  I would like to see if
> reformed entirely, but I would not want it removed.
>
> He then commented that, in general, government fails to
> accomplish the economies of scale that would allow it to
> provide the services we would otherwise have to pay for
> ourselves directly, and then noted the price savings
> disincentive (or more correctly "lack of price savings
> incentive") that plagues most public programs.  I completely
> agree with him, and would suggest that here too what is
> needed is better system design and monitoring, not an
> abandonment of the system.  I have priced having my driveway
> repaved.  If removal of old material, reconditioning of the
> surface, improving the side drainage and covering 700 square
> feet would cost me $2000 (which was the cheapest bid to
> date), I think what little I pay to see hundreds of square
> miles of roads for what little portion of my property and
> income taxes are used for that purpose is a bargain.  I don't
> disagree that there is probably some HUGE percentage of waste
> in that system (anything in double digits would be completely
> unacceptable in the private sector usually), but I reiterate
> what is needed is better system design and monitoring, not
> asking every citizen to be responsible for "their" section of
> the roads.
>
> Then we get to the juicy bits: the inherited rich and highest
> income level persons being taxed more heavily and his
> contention that the system is unfair.  Three points come to
> mind:  (a) the rich are much better represented in government
> and therefore HAVE and WILL receive better treatment in the
> tax code and all things monetary regardless of any attempts
> to make the system more fair; (b) the rich are
> disproportionately more likely to qualify for every type of
> exemption or be better prepared to take advantage of every
> type of exemption put in place to help the lower income
> classes and as such take benefit from EVERY change made to
> the system; and (c) the rich have better information and
> resources to change as quickly as the laws their outward
> facing financial makeup and therefore will be able to
> sidestep most changes made specifically to increase the
> percentage of them who do pay their fair share.
>
> Basically, my argument is for a system to be fair, it has to
> appear on the surface to be unfair to the rich for the very
> reason that they are best prepared to circumvent legally, if
> maybe not immorally, every law put in place to have them pay
> a truly proportionate part of their income.  Mike's argues
> that this unfairness provides a disincentive for wealth
> attainment, but I don't think it outweighs the perceived
> incentive of the act itself.  People want to be rich.
> Realizing that they will have to pay higher taxes if they
> become rich will not stop people from wanting to be rich and
> working at doing so.  And while the transition points are
> where everything is the worst, my mind immediately inserted
> the phrase "weeder classes" into my response.  If you can't
> make it over the fence, you aren't supposed to be on the
> other side yet.
>
> He then poses a very good question: what should we tax?  The
> only fair taxes are on consumption of non essentials.  Water,
> unprepared food, and basic shelter are the only things that
> would be exempt.  You want juice instead of water?  There's a
> sales tax on it.  You want the meal prepared for you?
> There's a restaurant tax on it.  You want to have a six
> bedroom home for you and your spouse (i.e. resident ration
> greater than 1:1)?  There's a residence tax on it.  Yes, this
> is ludicrous, but simplistic ideas like this are the ones
> that would be hardest to circumvent.  My expectation is that
> the complexities of our tax system are derived mainly from
> three things: attempts to be fair; using the system to
> accomplish OTHER goals such as create incentives or
> disincentives for other actions; and attempts on the part of
> "less than scrupulous" politicians to accomplish their own
> goals at the expense of all involved.
>
> Regardless, if the concern is that a tax system which focuses
> on income is too unfair to those in lower income brackets who
> are attempting to move into higher ones (e.g.: getting allot
> of overtime on one paycheck and having it all disappear in
> taxes which then *mostly* come back to you at the end of the
> year), then simply change the income tax system to be
> something like this: the minimum wage times two and then
> multiplied by a cost of living adjustment value for your zip
> code is tax exempt at all levels.  Any dollars above that
> value are taxed at a flat rate with a set percentage going to
> your city, county, state and federal governments.  Deductions
> are limited to incentive programs such as mortgage interest
> or charitable donations.  The only sticky point then becomes
> determining what is income.  This is where all income tax
> models breakdown.  The "double taxation" of dividend income
> was a red herring.  Most corporations do not pay fair taxes.
> They have accountants and lawyers whose sole function is to
> keep from paying taxes.  As such the dividend income was the
> ONLY portion of their profits being taxed.  In the private
> sector, I have worked for a few companies which paid
> dividends to their shareholders, but never paid much of
> anything in taxes; and was not impressed with the need to
> eradicate this bane on the economy.
>
> And, the argument that the government takes too much from the
> average worker is moot when discussing changes being made to
> the tax code which are targeted at things like dividend
> income, inheritance taxes and upper income tax rates.  None
> of them are applied to people in the lower income brackets.
> Regarding the inheritance tax, for example, if the first
> $250,000 is not taxed and transfer of farm property is not
> included, who exactly was being harmed by the inheritance
> taxes: your average lower income worker who just happened to
> be inheriting a half million dollars from some uncle he never
> knew?  Please.
>
> So, when Greg Stigers makes the point that the government
> should do only what it can do, I am thrown back to one of the
> planks in the Republican Party platform with which I will
> probably always completely agree but which I think is sorely
> misapplied: a smaller centralized government with higher
> levels of control at a state and local level.  The federal
> government's *main* functions should be dispute resolving and
> enabling collaboration between the states: investigate the
> problem, determine a set of standards, and allow the states
> to implement their own solutions which do not directly
> conflict with other states.  I am all for a federal system to
> set a standard for what anyone graduating from a publicly
> funded school should have been taught, but the choice of what
> other curriculum is included, and whose text book to use, and
> when during the school year to teach each subject, should be
> entirely controlled locally; and by that I mean the school
> board which meets two miles down the road, not in the state
> capital a day's drive away.
>
> And the idea that public schools are crap is a generalization
> based more on the lack of support given by the families
> rather than a complete failure on the part of the schools.  I
> was educated in the public school system but my family made
> it perfectly clear that I was there to learn, and instilled
> in me a high value for education.  My parents were part of
> the PTA, made me do my homework before going out to play,
> questioned me on what I was learning and quizzed me on it,
> and expected me to take the harder classes when given the
> option.  If parents can't or won't participate in their
> children's education, paying for a private school where the
> teachers have more authority is still only a Band-Aid, and
> they are still not going to be happy with the education their
> children receive.  Using school vouchers to allow tax dollars
> to pay for a student to attend that private school is even
> worse.  Schools are not babysitters anymore than a television
> is, and neither is the school responsible for teaching
> children anything other than the academic curriculum set by
> the state and their local school board.  Parents do not get
> to shuffle off their responsibility to raise their children
> when they reach school age.
>
> Yes, Greg, if the government did not purchase and maintain
> wetlands and forests, I would donate to organizations which
> would, much like I do now, though today I get tax credit for
> it as charitable contributions.  And an underlying assumption
> in your question is that my taxes would be lower if the
> government didn't pay for it, and therefore I would have more
> money to contribute.  I think having natural filtration
> systems for the water I drink and use to water my garden is
> important.  :)
>
> Where there in inequality in what I pay versus what I get in
> return (e.g. if I live in a pothole free town but still have
> to pay for a DOT), I accept the idea that there will be some
> other inequality that is in my favor.  I think the universe
> wouldn't exist if at some point, everything didn't eventually
> work out.  A little religious mysticism there, but the idea
> is a valid for the structures of man.  As such, I didn't
> state my "given" that the house I and the cash paying
> dotcommer are both paying property taxes on were similar if
> not the same; but it is what I meant.
>
> Greg's point that if income were not taxed, but businesses
> were, brings back up Mike's point that taxation is to a
> certain extent an incentive system.  If we taxed businesses
> only, why would anyone start a business?  This is visible now
> in the fact that many businesses don't pay taxes because they
> don't make a profit, or are borderline to the extent that the
> amount on which they are taxed is miniscule compared to their
> revenues.  Those same companies are paying salaries to people
> who get money whether or not the business shows a profit.
>
> And I don't think that there is any promise that I will
> receive back more than I pay in.  Rather, I think the promise
> is that I will receive more than my money would get me in
> another way.  For example, the citizens of my county are not
> paying $2.85 per square foot to repave our roads, though that
> is what I will pay to pave my driveway.  I'm not saying we
> aren't paying close to that for new roads, but the repave
> cost is minimal, and my driveway already exists.  It just
> looks crappy right now.
>
> The odd thing about all this is that I think we probably are
> taxed more than we should be, and I recognize that we are
> taxed unfairly: in some ways to our benefit and in others to
> our detriment.  And, I share Mike's desire for lower taxes,
> less intervention in our lives by the government, and a
> feeling that the money I'm sending to the town hall, state
> capital and D.C. is not wasted, but rather is put to use to
> help me and my fellow man.
>
> The problem is that we cannot fix the system by cutting off
> all the inputs and saying "Okay, now that the government has
> no money, they will cut the services we don't actually need
> them to provide, and businesses will appear to take up the
> slack which will then cost/value fight each other until the
> best value for the consumer is reached, and we'll all live
> happily ever after."  The reality is that getting three
> people to agree on where to go to lunch is the smallest
> microcosm example of the HUGE problem public officials face
> continually: coming up with solutions to problems in the face
> of conflicting interests and limited resources; and focusing
> on the systemic problem du jour is pretty much the only what
> change happens.  Whatever the populace wants fixed most will
> get attention and everything will get its chance.  Some
> things even resolve themselves.
>
> I am amazed at how often I can tolerate things I don't like
> by playing a game my father taught me when I was younger.  I
> try to come up with a better solution that takes into account
> all the people or systems that are effected by the problem.
> If I can't, I let it go, because I tried and don't see a
> better way.  If I can, first I assume I left someone out, and
> then I take it to heart: discussing it with friends, or
> writing my representatives.  I may even post something about
> it on 3000L.
>
> :)
>
> Mike, Greg, Brice, Paul, Christian, William, Joe, Richard, et
> al...  thanks for the discussion.
>
> Rs~
>
> Russ Smith
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> The opinions expressed in this email are mine, and are not
> meant to reflect
> those of any other party.  The subject matter herein is
> intended solely for
> the named recipient(s) of this email.  Spellcheck cancelled.
> Your mileage
> may vary.  Look both ways and hold hands when you cross the street.
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *