But then you run into the issue that you're telling someone how they can spend their money! I'd agree there is a case for inheritance taxes, but they run contrary to the idea of allowing someone to spend their money as they wish, and so a balance needs to be struck between the two.

I thought that no-one should be entitled to someone elses money, period?

Since a poor person will have a far lower disposable income relative to their total income, I'd have thought it far more likely that you'd be more wasteful than such people as a % of total income, since that person would have to be massively more wasteful than you with their disposable income for the wasted % of total income to be greater than yours.

But it is an investment - you have 2 options for a home, you can buy a house, or you can rent. Buying a house requires a large up front investment, renting doesn't. If you buy a house, you don't have to pay rent on it. Hence you are effectively generating a return on that house equal to the rental value of it (which you then consume yourself). You may fund your purchase via a mortgage, but it's still an investment regardless of how liquid or illiquid the house is, and regardless of how you raised the capital (although if you've funded your house purchase with a 100% mortgage in a state where house prices are expected to fall or stay level and where the interest payments will dwarf what you'd have paid in rent, it wouldn't exactly be the greatest of investments!). Similarly it is an asset because you could sell that house and rent a house instead, realising the proceeds from the sale. It may not be a very liquid one, but it is still one.

The 'gaining/losing' money when your house price fluctuates can be a common error made by people though, because if you only have the one home, and you want to remain a homeowner (i.e. aren't interested in the 'sale+rental' option) then you will either be upgrading your house or downgrading it. If you're upgrading it, then rises in house prices will be hurting you, even though you might think you've 'made $10k this last year'. Meanwhile if you're downgrading your house from say a $400k one to a $200k one and house prices fall 10%, then rather than losing $40k you'll really only have lost $20k.

What I don't understand about this though is that by firing those people you will be hurting your future income, thus meaning you'd be maintaining current consumption levels at the cost of future ones (assuming you're not boardering on a higher marginal tax rate that the increased income in the future from the hiring of people would suffer). Those workers would afterall be expected to make a profit for you (otherwise why hire them), meaning any saving in costs today would be expected to be more than offset by future reductions in revenue.

Depends how you look at it - they could argue that they don't force you to give them money, since they're not forcing you to work in the area over which they have power (via the government). That is, no-one is forcing you to earn money in the US, just as no-one is forcing workers to work for you, or customers to buy your products.

I find this interesting; not the class war stuff so much as the original question, 'Who decides where our money should go?'

Jill, I'm currently in a Master's program for Public Administration.  It is both incredibly interesting and incredibly frustrating.  As chance has it, I am taking budgeting this quarter (local gov, state gov, and federal gov).

The text book (and Constitutional) answer to this question is...you do.  You, as in me, as in us, the voters, decide how tax money is spent by electing policy makers, ie politicians.

The REALITY is, most people who vote can't tell you what the economic policy is for the person receiving their vote.  (And later I will discuss why even if they do, it may not matter.)

The more I research, the more amazing this becomes....For the most part (and there are always exceptions) local governments and even state governments are run "responsibly."  I'll define that as basically balancing a budget (sad definition for responsible I know)...and states do that mostly because of balanced budget laws (which the fed gov doesn't have).

It's amazing.  Once you hop from state gov to federal government, the abuse, the CRAZINESS grows exponentially.  WHY?

The federal gov by its very nature is too big, WAY too big and its not controllable without a LOT of bureaucracy/administration (which incorporates self-policing and red tape).  And bureaucracy costs a lot of money.  (You can bet at least 50% of every dollar for "national infrastructure" is going to pay administrators to run the program (which is reasonable, someone has to run it) but also to pay for the "policing" of the funding for it.  Because the public wants to be sure the money is not wasted, everything is checked, re-checked and double re-checked, then approved (Again reasonable, transparency is important when spending other people's money....but very expensive and also time consuming).

It would be much cheaper if the fed gov gave the money to the states and let them do their thing because they already have offices for infrastructure in place as well as self-controls for policing.  So admin cost goes to almost nothing. 

The truth is, the people we elect aren't really deciding where the money goes anyway.  They make the general policy (like passing a law)sure, then its handed to administrators who decide the guidelines and all the details (like how the law will be enforced, any funding, policed, etc).  And who are these administrators?  (They aren't elected that's for sure..they're people like, well, me...hah...kinda).

The reason the administration program is frustrating?  For the most part it is full of liberal ideology.  Most administrators I've met (at the City Manager and State levels, as well as most of the people in the program already in this field who are spending tax dollars every single day on the job) are completely anti-capitalist.  Most feel superior for choosing public service as a career and believe all Americans should serve the public, all the time, and not themselves.

I can't tell you how many debates I get in discussing these very issues.  They believe, at a fundamental level, that the gov should be able to tell business owners how to spend their money, and what to pay their employees.  I'm not talking publically traded companies here either, I mean every single private business.  They have issues with (and believe the gov should intercede) if a business owner decides to pay his CEO 50 times what the line worker is making.

I argue with this because I say...its none of their damn business!  Stay out of it. 

I use this example because it parlays onto how taxes are spent.  The liberal ideology of the people actually deciding how specifically the money is spent is..."Its ok to tax the wealthy. They have more than they need." 

Of course each individual subscriber to this ideology has a "Mental Number" (a $ amount they consider more than anyone "needs" in a year), from my experience so far, it hovers around the $200,000-$250,000 a year mark.

Anyone making over that amount should give it to the public as a sort of "public service."

Remember when Biden said paying more taxes is patriotic?  Well, even though he tried to back track..that's EXACTLY the mindset.  EXACTLY.

In fact it is such an accepted mindset, it isn't even taught.  Everyone "starts from there."  And of course if you don't already know it, haven't already internalized it, you're (meaning me) an uneducated breeder (did I mention out of 60 people, the majority of which are in their 30's and 40's...I am only one of two with kids?)

All that to say this.  Imo, our country is never ever going to agree on taxes.  The ideologies are too polar opposite.  Even when you get fiscally conservative politicians in place, the administrators actually deciding HOW to spend the money are still very liberal.

I think this country would be better served if more fiscally conservative minded people went into administrations and started running these gov organizations.

But for some reason, the field doesn't attract conservatives for the most part.

Wonder why? 

It's not what liberals say that keeps me up at night.  It's what they don't say, what they take for granted.

Real quick and I'll try to respond more tomorrow:

She's not entitled to it. That doesn't mean I begrudge it.  Please read what is written without extending what is written into something that is totally different from what was originally written.

Saying you don't think someone should be entitled to the benefit (i.e. they shouldn't have any legal right to receive benefits from the state) is at face value contrary to saying you don't begrudge them receiving that benefit. It's certainly not "extending what is written into something that is totally different" to question the contradictory nature of this, and you've still failed to clarify how you don't begrudge someone receiving the benefit, yet think they shouldn't be entitled to that same benefit. One reading of it is that while you don't think they should get the benefit, you really don't care enough about it to begrudge them getting the benefit. Alternatively you're somehow arguing that they should get the benefit, but shouldn't be entitled to the benefit, although quite how you'd envisage that working in practice is anyones guess - would the state just say that it'll have a lottery, and 1 random person in 10 will receive a benefit based no their income, and the other 9 won't? If you're going to have a benefit (based on someones income), the fairest way of administering it is to make sure that the default is that every person qualifying with the relevent income level is entitled to receive it. The only other interpretation I can think of is that you're saying that there shouldn't be an automatic right for the government to provide income based benefits at all, but that you have no issue with them providing said benefits, in which case why not just say you don't begrudge them and have done with it? I don't recall anyone claiming it should be a basic human right enshrined in law/set in stone that a government should provide a welfare system, hence the 'entitled' issue shouldn't really arise.

Precisely. The rich have a natural advantage in determining how their disproportionate tax dollars are spent too - they can afford lobbyists and advertising campaigns capable of swaying how funding is distributed, particulalry on the federal level where individual politicians are incapable of understanding all the issues they need to know. If you had rigid party structures they wouldn't be so vulnerable, but you'd also have much less diversity of opinion and approach, so it's a trade-off.

Personally I'm in favour of prohibitive bonuses. Families who are a drain on the public purse due to their own lack of personal responsibility (drunks, gamblers, addicts of all sorts, criminals) don't really deserve handouts. But, for better or worse it would be excessively callous and unhygienic if not explicitly dangerous to withhold a living allowance. I think the solution is to provide enough, but provide a bonus if you meet certain extra requirements, such as drug-free, age and build appropriate weight ranges, pursuit of educational opportunites if underemployed etc.

It's not very practical as yet, but it would be more fair.

LW and maudlin, since this is really gotten off course, let's stop making this about LW because it's getting really tired.  We go back and forth and don't make any ground because LW says "well you are paying my medical" and then when Brad said "she's not entitled" LW goes into how she's actually already paid for it.  So let's take the individual out in order to clarify the point Brad was trying to make.  Plenty of Americans have never or effectively never contributed to the system yet benefit from it.  Brad is saying that he agrees that we all need to help people in our society get back on their feet.  By "not entitled" he is pointing out that pleny of people seem to think that the gov'ment owes them or the "rich people" owe them because the rich people are just luckier than they are.

Anyone who wants to come on and say "I don't know anyone who feels that way" please don't.  I know of plenty who feel exactly that way so just save it.  It isn't something we'll agree on.  And I'm not saying that LW is one of those parties (again, this is not about LW).

Tova, THANK YOU!  Thank you for getting this back on subject.  You are so right!  The main problem I had with President Bush was he wasn't conservative at all.  Growing government is the exact opposite of what Republicans stand for. 

What the hell LW?!  Did your macular degeneration prevent you from reading my comment that this is not about you?  You know what, you could live to be 100 and Brad could drop dead from a stroke or genetic circulation and heart defects so save it.  It truly sucks that some people have one lousy thing after another happen to them.  We have plenty of friends and family that that applies to and we try to help them all out in whatever way we can so don't try to make Brad out to be some selfish Scooge.  Why shouldn't I be able to donate a bunch of money to the Macular Degeneration Foundation (which we do donate to BTW) rather than have the government take our money and squander it under the guise of "health care"?  Maybe LW and my cousin wouldn't end up blind if we could donate even half of our tax bill each year.

So tell, me straight up, are you saying that Americans who have health problems are entitled to everyone else's money?  What about all of those Americans that are not "disabled" but have just enough health problems to make them miserable all the time but deemed able to work?  How much are they entitiled to?  What about the person who has one child that is allergic to the world but goes ahead and has another and guess what, that one's allergic to everything too?  Just tell me because that is the question I was putting forth, who decides where my money is to be spent?  Because I don't like the fact that my government wants to spend my money on birth control and abortions.  I don't like the idea of paying for Viagra via medicare.  I don't feel I should be forced to pay ACORN or at a local level, pay for the Mayor's wife's luxury cars.

I'm healthy and I have money so I guess I should just shut up and pay my "fair share".  Who am I to complain because I have "plenty".  I have more than I "need".  I get it.  It is okay for those struggling right now to have no "sympathy" for me.  But the thing is, I'm not asking for sympathy.  I pay all my bills including taxes.  I even give time and money to charities.  My views haven't changed since I had nothing to my name.  I didn't expect to be taken care of then and I don't expect to have to take care of everyone else now.

This applies to unions and other professional organizations as well (so not always the "rich.")  In fact if you were to survey lobbyist organizations in this country right now, I'd guess most work for blue collar wage earners who pool their resources under union umbrellas.

For the moment, it is illegal to lobby administrators, and well it should be. 

Woodrow Wilson made a great case for getting gov under control/working in this country.  He said we are a young country and focus all our energies on "constitution building" with no idea how to make it work.  In essence, the actual administration of the very thing people are so passionate about is considered a back burner issue, a "we'll deal with it later."  Well, it IS later.  We can continue arguing over the constitution or just get on with administering it.

So we pass a law saying for example, women and blacks are people, equal rights and all that.  That's pretty.  Well said.  But how to MAKE it happen, how to enforce it, police it, develop it at the "Educational" level..that's all up to administrative discretion, essentially in the hands of people who are NOT elected. 

Administrators are trained to sift every decision through the Consititution...meaning basically asking is this fair to everyone?  That is tedious at best because ultimately it isn't about whats is fair, or constitutional.  It's about what the administrator THINKS is fair or Constitutional.  So ideology plays a central, and I'd say, ESSENTIAL role in government at the actual application level, and is where the seed of our current problems are found.

Maud, if you don't understand the difference between someone being entitled to something and not begruding someone getting something then there's not much point in us interacting.

I don't begrudge someone receiving charity but I don't think people are entitled to charity.  I'm not going to waste time going into a semantical argument about it.

As for LW:

If you think you are entitled to live the rest of your life paid for by your fellow citizens I'm not going to debate that.  I said earlier it doesn't bother me until you start to make remarks about how I spend the money I earn.

I happen to support having a safety net of some kind for people.  (can you see the difference there Maudin? No? Nevermind).  What I don't support is having people justify ever increasing amounts of money being taken by one group to be given to another because the receiving group doesn't like how the former group spends their own money.

The objection I have is the lack of distinction between money that is earned and money that has been given.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't think the only choices in life are being fabulously wealthy or being on public assistance.  I have also not been saying you are a loser or a burden in society.

My beef is when people say that it's perfectly fine for the money I earn to be taken away because I have "enough". I don't like seeing people rationalize theft.

When have I ever made it about LW? I prefer to keep things general rather than get tied down in the specifics of a particular individual.

But if you believe in the government offering a helping hand, having people who have never contributed to the system but who benefit from it isn't a bad thing by itself. There's a big difference between someone who finishes school, tries to get a job and either fails or gets such a poor low paying one that they need support from the state to survive, and someone who aims to live on benefits and never even tries getting a job. Both will have never contributed to the system, but at least the first one is trying, and will likely be able to in the future.

Actually he seems to be saying that he disagrees with the plenty of people who think that if they fall on hard times they should be entitled to a helping hand from the government, or the people who think that you should be entitled to some help to survive if you are doing everything you possibly can but still not quite managing to make ends meet. See the comparison to charity in the later post as one example (although not the best) of this. I've not been talking about people who think that the rich "owe" them money because they're luckier, I've been talking about the people who work as hard as they can to survive, yet are unable to earn enough to survive. I believe such people should be entitled to help from the governments. Similarly I believe that someone who pays taxes for a number of years and suddenly suffers an unexpected illness that prevents them working (or greatly reduces their ability to work) should be entitled to some help from the government. It's why I've not had much issue with many of the points you've raised, but have with Brads, because his tend to be more unequivical, such as the "A person is not entitled to someone else's money. Period." comment. Reading on, he now has said he does support a safety net for some people, but this then goes against saying the previously quoted comment. Either people are not entitled to others money period, or they are in some cases. Having a government safety net means that you are supporting a person being entitled to someone elses money in some cases.

Taxing people based on their income is the fairest method though. You can afford to pay more taxes, the poorest can't, hence if the government wishes to increase taxes, they're going to look at those who can afford the tax increases. The tax on the rich will be taking away luxuries. The tax on the poorest will be taking away necessities. Also there's a massive difference between someone who rationalises higher taxes on the rich than the poor, and people who justify ever increasing amounts of money being taken by one group to be given to another because the receiving group doesn't like how the former group spends their own money. I have no problem with how the rich spend their money (assuming it's not hurting others (i.e. likely illegal), of course), but I have a big problem with taxing the rich as much as the poor

Anyway I think I might join LW and retire from this thread since I've no wish to get involved in a bitter argument (and I get the sense there's a chance of that happening).

Yay!  I say that because you just don't seem to get it and keep either ignoring the point or not understanding it.

And he has amongst the worst reading comprehension of anyone on the site.  Oye.  Which part of "I support a safety net" isn't clear? Sheesh.  He just wants to focuses on piddly semantics instead of discussing a given issue.

I think LW said it best when she compared SS with an insurance policy. I don't begrudge having a safety net. I also don't begrudge LW getting money out of the system because she paid in. But I don't think she or anyone else is entitled to the money of others. But I do think they are entitled to their own money back.

I think Maudin just purposely reads things through the most obtuse prism he can find.  And even that wouldn't bug me if he didn't try to hijack entire discussions in order to try to nitpick some piddly point that he's decided to read a certain way.  Reminds me of Dave Tholen on Usenet who was notorious for that.

If a person is here to fixate on individual words and not topics, then I am happy to see them go.

True enough. But compared to ordinary citizens, who mostly aren't union members, the average 'rich' person can afford a moderate advertising campaign on their own dime. Their status as employers opens political doors too. The big companies don't even use lobbyist organisations, because they don't need them. But in essence you're right - I did overlook unions and professional organisations like medical guilds.

It's amazing how many small differences there are between our systems. I'd always thought your public service was like the Australian one - each department reports to a minister/secretary, who decides what is done and why. But if administrators are making the decisions based on their own frameworks, I can see why ideology in the American PS is such a major issue.

Fascinating.

As you know I'm in favour of 'bread and circus' approaches to maintaining good public order, mainly because executing the poor is messy and immoral and letting them be utterly impoverished makes the streets dangerous and disease more prevalent. But yes, technically they aren't entitled to your money; it just makes sense to me to give them a little so they don't take the lot.