If Romney wins the GOP, I forsee bad things for....

[GasBandit]

Not a terribly compelling argument, really. Government predates money, so should people only be allowed to inherit goats and chickens?

Where I was going with that, was that the practice of passing down one's wealth to one's progeny was established, so for a governmental entity to juxtapose itself and confiscate the inheritance is, in fact, taking something away from somebody. If I throw a ball to someone, and you catch it in midair, you can't argue that you didn't take the ball from anybody.

Taxes are not an end unto themselves. They are an unfortunate reality that we countenance in order to fund the workings of a government. We actually were able to fund government without an income tax before 1913. If we're looking for people who need to be "challenged" to do more with less, a pretty good place to start is government. Even if we took 100% of all income made above $1 million, it would only pay off half the 2009 deficit (and then of course you'd have to deal with not having anybody left to tax the next year).

Until we get serious about cutting spending, all the tax-raising in the world is just polishing doorknobs on the titanic.
Added at: 17:38

What boggles me mind with gas sometimes is the sense that capitalism should constantly outweigh humanity, which is, at its core, the reason why we fucking have governments in the first place.

There's "humanity" and then there's powergrabs under the auspices of humanity. A nation of self-reliant independent individuals is a whole lot harder to oppress than a nation of de facto welfare recipients. Which was the whole point behind the thought process of the founding of the country.
Added at: 17:39

If you supported your arguments with logic instead of Gas, I might be more inclined to waste time arguing with you.

I don't think anything could get you to "waste the time" any more, you like chuckling at the sidelines too much. Put up or shut up.

 

[Krisken]

No.

 

[GasBandit]

No.

 

[ElJuski]

Yeah, gas, but if you had it your way, these individuals would be building this nation one Apple microchip at a time 7 days a week.

 

[Krisken]

I've been Van Der Beek'ed. That has to be a new low.

And you're quite wrong, Gas. If I felt there was anything worth responding to seriously, I would be happy to. Unfortunately I've been driven to the point of not taking any of it seriously.

You made me.

 

[GasBandit]

Yeah, gas, but if you had it your way, these individuals would be building this nation one Apple microchip at a time 7 days a week.

That's as much a mischaracterization as if I said if you had your way we'd all be soviets. All I want is a balanced budget. I'll settle for that. And you can't get there from here by taxation alone. There's gonna have to be a whooooooole lot of spending cut from entitlements, bureaucracy, and yes, the military. Along with everything else.

 

[MindDetective]

Where I was going with that, was that the practice of passing down one's wealth to one's progeny was established, so for a governmental entity to juxtapose itself and confiscate the inheritance is, in fact, taking something away from somebody. If I throw a ball to someone, and you catch it in midair, you can't argue that you didn't take the ball from anybody.

Taxes are not an end unto themselves. They are an unfortunate reality that we countenance in order to fund the workings of a government. We actually were able to fund government without an income tax before 1913. If we're looking for people who need to be "challenged" to do more with less, a pretty good place to start is government. Even if we took 100% of all income made above $1 million, it would only pay off half the 2009 deficit (and then of course you'd have to deal with not having anybody left to tax the next year).

Until we get serious about cutting spending, all the tax-raising in the world is just polishing doorknobs on the titanic.

I am absolutely on board with slimming government. And I would like to pay less taxes as much as the next guy. After studying the way people think for...wow, more than 16 years...I think the government should have a role in regulating things that an individual, while engaged in behavior that primarily serves his or her own interest, cannot understand the societal ramifications of. I've mentioned the tragedy of the commons before but I think this applies to the estate tax as well (and other things, like punitive damages in court cases). It is regulatory, not simply a tax. Wealth accumulation could conceivably reach a mathematical limit that effectively breaks the economy. Prior to that, it can place undue power in the hands of minority of people that have done little to earn it. Should the government have it? That's certainly debatable. Perhaps it could be regulated in a way that it goes to a pre-selected charity (or set of charities) above a certain amount and to the government if it has not been specified. Should the government be involved? Yes, because we're entering the territory of big waves from an accumulation of small splashes, which is exactly when the government should be involved.

 

[Krisken]

Not a bad idea, that. Put me on for the charity requirement thing MD suggests.

 

[fade]

Like I said before, I think there are quite a few small-government dems out there, who are concerned for the same reasons that most libertarians are...they just don't think that if you have a bad driver you should scrap the car.

 

[GasBandit]

It'd be an interesting thing to try. Of course it raises the question of which charities are approved, who oversees them, and how recipients of those charities are selected, but everything has potential for corruption these days. Just to be clear though, we're still just talking about estate taxes here, right? Not Income/Capital Gains/etc?

 

[strawman]

Vote the MindDetective and Krisken party - We take the money you spent your life earning ... for the good of humanity!

Think of the children humanity!

 

[Krisken]

You can't take it with you when you die. Bummer.

 

[GasBandit]

So just to get this thread somewhere approaching the original topic again... would you guys consider the mormon church a valid charity for this idea?

Because Romney gave them a whole smegton of money.

 

[Krisken]

What charitable work does the Mormon church perform? Do they do things for the community? I guess that's what I would base it on.

 

[GasBandit]

Near as I can tell a great deal of their donations go to BYU and building more churches, but there's also stuff about things like 3rd world clean water, food production, wheelchairs/orthotics and that sort of thing... but it seems if you don't live in Africa, you pretty much have to be in the LDS to benefit from their 'philanthropies' as they call them.

 

[strawman]

So just to get this thread somewhere approaching the original topic again... would you guys consider the mormon church a valid charity for this idea?

Because Romney gave them a whole smegton of money.

The LDS church has two primary types of offerings.

* Tithing - which is 10% of one's income - is used for the church to support facilities, activities, etc.
* Fast offerings - which is at the member's discretion - is used for supporting the needy, and for humanitarian and disaster relief efforts

So the fast offerings would be the "valid charity" for this idea - the gov't has no business giving other people's money into the tithing funds, which go primarily to the support of the church and spreading of its teachings.



There are other charity funds the church runs - educational loans in countries without student financial aid, for instance.

But personally I wouldn't suggest that the gov't give any personal taxes to any religion. That would simply be a Bad Thing (TM).

 

[ElJuski]

Vote the MindDetective and Krisken party - We take the money you spent your life earning ... for the good of humanity!

Think of the children humanity!

Look. This country has done plenty alongside my family and the community around me to give me all the chances I need to make my own way in life. If I can help out other people, be it through government-funded programs like schools, roads, police, and social programs, by giving a portion of my paycheck to the US, I'm so there.

 

[Krisken]

That's a shame, really. Perhaps anything donated in this way must be used for accepted charitable actions. Food or clothing for the poor, disaster aid, etc. Advancing a church doctrine doesn't really count as 'charity' in my eyes.

 

[MindDetective]

It'd be an interesting thing to try. Of course it raises the question of which charities are approved, who oversees them, and how recipients of those charities are selected, but everything has potential for corruption these days. Just to be clear though, we're still just talking about estate taxes here, right? Not Income/Capital Gains/etc?

Yup. Although I think a "charitable cause" option on your tax returns to choose the way (some of) your money is spent is worth thinking about. Like you said, there is some oversight issues involved with things like this.

Vote the MindDetective and Krisken party - We take the money you spent your life earning ... for the good of humanity!

Think of the children humanity!

Only when you are done using it. Even then, not all of it.

 

[GasBandit]

Look. This country has done plenty alongside my family and the community around me to give me all the chances I need to make my own way in life. If I can help out other people, be it through government-funded programs like schools, roads, police, and social programs, by giving a portion of my paycheck to the US, I'm so there.

Ironically, practically none of that is covered by federal taxes. Schools, infrastructure, and police are pretty much state funded, not federal. So, your state's income tax (if you have one), sales tax, and your local municipality's property taxes are what goes to there.

Federal Taxes? Medicare, Medicaid, social security, welfare, the military, and the interest on the national debt. That accounts for more than 3 quarters of it.

 

[strawman]

Look. This country has done plenty alongside my family and the community around me to give me all the chances I need to make my own way in life. If I can help out other people, be it through government-funded programs like schools, roads, police, and social programs, by giving a portion of my paycheck to the US, I'm so there.

I don't mind reasonable taxation - it's necessary for the way I want to live. But once you go beyond reasonable to unreasonable, and say that I no longer have a choice in which humanitarian efforts I can put my money to, then I believe a fundamental freedom is being taken away - the freedom to choose how your effort is spent. Money is simply an easy way to transfer my skills - programming and electronic design - to someone else who has something I need.

If I spend 500 hours on a difficult problem, I don't mind the gov't saying, "150 hours is needed to pay for roads, schools, the needy, and other necessary public infrastructure" but I do care when they start a new porkbarrel project in order to create wasteful gov't jobs in some far-flung election district of a greedy senator who needs more votes. I do care when they say, "You can spend your 350 hours anyway you like, but if it's for X, Y, and Z then we'll charge you again because we can." I'm really not interested in double and triple taxation - how many times is the government going to divide the same dollar that I worked for?

Reasonable taxes that are simple to understand, easy to pay, where you are taxed only once for each dollar you make, and where the gov't spending of the taxes is transparent.

 

[Necronic]

An i'll believe Texas' talk when they actually do it... because it's not really in their advantage to break off the US... hell, you guys don't even have the ethnic differences...​

Wow this is so phenomenally misinformed. (Urban) Texas is ridiculously diverse. We have a ton of mexicans, plus a *massive* german ancestry, one of the largest vietnamese popultaions in the country, a fast-growing persian population. And I've gotten the impression that Alien is from Europe. Talking about diversity when you are from one of the least diverse places in the world is pretty lol.

Houston is a prime example of this. It's only 50% white (and only like 25% non-hispanic white). University of Houston is ranked the second most diverse university in the nation. There is a vietnamese radio station. And the coolest thing is that it's not done like it is in Cali or New York, where you have ethnic neighborhoods. People are just all over, it's pretty awesome. In my last three apartments my neighbors have been german, columbian, chinese, and an iranian family. Only 2 of them were US born.

Second Edit: Texas has the 4th lowest % of non-hispanic whites ("Whitey") behind California, Hawaii (doesn't count) and district of columbia (doesn't count).

Third Edit: The US takes in more immigrants than the rest of the world combined. Yeah, we're really not that diverse.

THIS IS MY HOUSE. And everyone's welcome it will be a potluck.

---------------------

On that note did anyone hear the latest This American Life? It was talking about Alabama's new immigration policy, something that Romney is now backing and talking about for his campaign. This is the policy that requires that anyone that doesn't look like a red-blooded american is required to produce extensive paperwork to prove their right to be there? This is the policy that led to the arrrest and embarrasment of a German Mercedes exec and another Honda exec.

Yeah this is a stupid policy. When you have police officers, economists, and the republican majority whip who helped start the proposal say that it's a really bad idea that should tell you something.

 

[GasBandit]

Wow this is so phenomenally misinformed. (Urban) Texas is ridiculously diverse. We have a ton of mexicans, plus a *massive* german ancestry, one of the largest vietnamese popultaions in the country, a fast-growing persian population. And I've gotten the impression that Alien is from Europe. Talking about diversity when you are from one of the least diverse places in the world is pretty lol.

Houston is a prime example of this. It's only 50% white (and only like 25% non-hispanic white). University of Houston is ranked the second most diverse university in the nation. There is a vietnamese radio station. And the coolest thing is that it's not done like it is in Cali or New York, where you have ethnic neighborhoods. People are just all over, it's pretty awesome. In my last three apartments my neighbors have been german, columbian, chinese, and an iranian family. Only 2 of them were US born.

Second Edit: Texas has the 4th lowest % of non-hispanic whites ("Whitey") behind California, Hawaii (doesn't count) and district of columbia (doesn't count).

While everything you said is true, I think what he was implying was that there was not enough of an ethnic difference between Texas and the rest of the US for there to be a breakup. This is also incorrect, but for different reasons - while Texas is highly diverse in ethnicity and thus not really "ethnically" different from the rest of the nation, it is VERY different culturally. In fact, most general areas of the US have cultural distinctions from other parts. Hell, I could spend all day on the differences between the culture of Texas and its neighbor Louisiana, alone!

Some people seem to forget that the United States is of a size roughly comperable to the entire EU. We have many states larger than many of their countries. And yet some people still thing we're homogenized from sea to shining sea.

 

[Krisken]

I'm ok with Texas breaking off.

 

[Necronic]

Ahh ok, you know me, mention one bad thing about Texas and I will start going crazy town. Unless its about the weather because it is 75 and insanely humid right now and has only been below 50 like 10 times this winter. Anyways, Texas is a bit unique in that it's a blend of the south and midwest, with some major east coast business and some serious west coast culture. And come on man the Louisianna example is totally unfair, that's probably the most unique state in the continental US.

Honestly I would never want to see Texas leave the Union though, it's just a terrible business idea. A lot of the wealth in this state is dependant on us being part of the nation (military contracting, oil stuff, and healthcare.) Now, we could probably kick the following states out without too many reppurcussions:

Alabama
Arkansas
South Carolina
Mississippi
Georgia
Kansas
All those midwest states that no one can remember where they are exactly.
And the rest of the deep south, except Florida because we need a place to store the elderly.

 

[GasBandit]

He also misunderstood what I was saying - I wasn't saying texas would revolt, I was saying the states would be left to fend for themselves when the federal government goes under.

 

[Krisken]

The federal government isn't going under. The rest of the world wouldn't allow it, especially China, which is completely dependent on the U.S. consumer society.

 

[GasBandit]

The federal government isn't going under. The rest of the world wouldn't allow it, especially China, which is completely dependent on the U.S. consumer society.

There is a breaking point. And I don't see any willingness to change behavior in the government or in the people. Yes, China is largely dependent on the US buying its goods.. but how far will it extend us credit to do so? 10 trillion? 100 trillion? A quadrillion?

In the time it took me to write this reply, the federal government spent $500,000.

 

[Krisken]

So everyone panic because there is national debt.

For reals, though, it's not going to happen. The entire world went into a panic when they thought the largest banks would go under. The United States is too big to fail. That doesn't mean we shouldn't trim a lot of fat from the budget (like wars without raising taxes, so dumb), mind you. Some things are being done to reduce spending. It's just not as dire as you seem to think.

 

[GasBandit]

So everyone panic because there is national debt.

For reals, though, it's not going to happen. The entire world went into a panic when they thought the largest banks would go under. The United States is too big to fail. That doesn't mean we shouldn't trim a lot of fat from the budget (like wars without raising taxes, so dumb), mind you. Some things are being done to reduce spending. It's just not as dire as you seem to think.

And the graph is out of date. It only goes up to 9 trillion. Our current debt is up to 15 trillion. Pardon me if I feel a sense of urgency.
Added at: 17:49
"some things are being done to reduce spending" you say? Like what, the supercommitte? That wracked its brains for so very long to finally come up with 21 billion dollars in cuts this year, and kicked the can down the road?

 

[MindDetective]

how about factoring in population size, GDP, and numerous other factors. debt per person is more telling than total debt. adjusted debt per person is even better.

 

[GasBandit]

how about factoring in population size, GDP, and numerous other factors. debt per person is more telling than total debt. adjusted debt per person is even better.

That number currently sits at 50.9k, according to usdebtclock.org.

 

[Krisken]

Which is still manageable. Horrible and depressing? Yes. But it's not the end of the federal government.

 

[GasBandit]

Which is still manageable. Horrible and depressing? Yes. But it's not the end of the federal government.

And 2006 wasn't when the housing bubble burst.

For MD: found a graph that adjusts for inflation instead of CPI:

Added at: 18:12
Let me put it another way - our debt just recently passed our GDP. We're now officially halfway to where Greece is (debt double gdp).

 

[strawman]

The United States is too big to fail.