Tea Parties?

[sxsw_dad]

Why don't we get rid of all federally funded programs and pay 0.1% tax instead of the 28% a lot of people pay now (well, that's just income tax). Then we couldn't complain about how sucky the schools are because we pay for them out of our own pocket.

RIGHT ON! This is what I'm talking about. Just think about all the money we would have to send our kids to the best private schools in the system if we didn't have the burden of 28% taxes! Awesome!

We couldn't complain about how sucky traffic is because there wouldn't be any roads.

I highly doubt that. I would argue that roads would be built more for the demand of where they should be instead of the state building them because it best fits what the lobbyist pocket books. I would also argue that projects wouldn't take as long and there wouldn't be as much traffic. John Stossel did a great 20/20 report about public vs private roads. I would suggest you google it and check it out.

We wouldn't complain about how high the gas tax was because it wouldn't be there.

lol.. It would totally be there but without all the huge amounts of taxes on it because now the government wouldn't be burdened with maintaining the roads.

We couldn't complain about how medicare blows because we wouldn't have it.

Haha... Of course we would have it. More than likely at cheaper rates too! Besides for those of you that think our health care system is horrible just look at other countries like Zimbabwe's health care system and thank your lucky stars we have one that isn't anything like that.

We could abolish social security and welfare and just have a bunch of homeless beggars wandering around everywhere panhandling and bothering us in our homes.

If everyone didn't have to pay taxes there would be many many more jobs for those people so I seriously doubt there would be some surge of homeless because the American people have more money. lol. And Social Security. Please there's no way it's going to stay solvent in the coming years of the baby boomers retirement. Besides I don't know about you but I could use that money to invest more wisely than the government could ever for my retirement.

We could let everyone out of prison and disband the police force -- anarchy RULES.

Well at least those that have been put there for smoking dope. And to think that the police would be disbanded is just a joke. lol

But, then we could all still buy guns, at an untaxed rate, so why not just kill them bastards on sight? Who needs cops?!

Protecting your property and person is a right so yes in self defense sure. I don't see a problem with that mainly because cops can't be every where all the time.

And fire departments, they never respond fast enough anyway so let's just ditch 'em. Hmm... what other public services do taxes provide for that a lot of people have obviously forgotten about?

Well fire and police aren't usually paid for by the federal government any way. So I would support public funds going to them to keep us safe anyway. I'm more concerned with the federal government forcing us to follow their rules. I mean really who are they to come in and say that we all have to spay and nuder our pets. I'm sure if there is a problem of over population in our country/city the local government can take care of that instead of making sweeping legislation for the entire country.

My point is that taxes are a necessary evil, and no matter what we do if we want the government to do stuff, we have to pay them. Do I agree with the spendulous package? No, and it's going to actually probably save my job. Do I agree with bailouts? No, I think they are ridiculous and silly.

I totally agree with you that some taxes are necessary. I just think that a lot of federal taxes are not necessary. But you are totally right if "we" do decide we "need" all these things then yes the government has to get the money from some where either by taxing us or through inflation. Although I can safely say that I don't believe that "we" need the federal government to be everything it is today. "We" can do a much better job if "we" are ever allowed to do so.

Do I think that everyone in DC thinks what they are doing is saving our country? Yes, I do.

Yep I would agree with that too. I look at it more of a battle of philosophies because everyone wants to save the country. They just have different ways of getting there.

[Red'sGirl]

I now get it. I think I now understand you, sxsw_dad. You, IMO, have an incredibly ...... well, wrong, opinion on the way that people in this country act.

If we had no taxes, and just paid for services, YOU seem to think that people would pay for 1) what is needed and 2) what they really care about, and ultimately everything would get taken care of, but economically. Those that don't get money, etc. must not have a good product.

BUT, the reality is that, without taxes, people would not likely pay that much more of their money for things outside of their home. With more money in their pockets, their bank accounts would fatten, their houses would get bigger, their cars would be updated, and their kid's college funds would be greater. They'd take a lot nicer vacations. And when they occasionally thought about it, they might donate a $100 here and there - most likely to the private schools that they send their kids. EVERYTHING else would be left to, "I'm sure others have already paid towards this, so I don't have to", or "why do I always have to pay towards roads, let someone else do it", or even "I don't care about that section of road because I don't drive in THAT part of town". The poor would end up living in a world that looks like a MAD MAX movie. And everyone would be out for themselves. It's - sadly- human nature. Most people only care about themselves and couldn't care less about doing something for the "greater good" - not even if it's practical and necessary. Passing the buck is as American as apple pie.

It's nice that you think it would be so great, but it wouldn't work. Furthermore, if we even tried your little experiment, we'd never recover from it. That is why we have taxes. That is how we came to have grants, etc. If people had given so freely as you suggest, we wouldn't have developed the system we have. It didn't come out of a black hole - these things were developed to fill a need. You assume we don't have the need anymore, but most of us think we have a stronger need than every before.

fundamental differences.

[hub1176]

Furthermore, if we even tried your little experiment, we'd never recover from it.

I thought we did - in the 1920's.....

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

So some how that gives you the authority to tell me how I should post and what I should do? Thanks I'll try and remember that from now on.

Um, I don't know if you're aware of this, but what I did was actually called "sharing an opinion" as well! And you are perfectly welcome to put me on ignore.

I'm not trying to "educate" anyone. You may feel or see it that way but I'm just stating my opinions and when they disagree with yours I can't controll if you feel like it is "education." Why not instead have a conversation with me about it and state your points of view and where you feel I'm wrong with mine. That's what discussion and debate is all about instead of just complaining about me and how my opinions make you feel.

Says the guy who's constantly whining about how everyone makes "personal attacks" on him. Dude, I can't help it if you don't like how others react to you. You have a choice to either modify your behavior so you get a different response, or to continue what you're doing and get the same response. If I were the only one who reacted this way, I'd say you had a point. But when the majority of your fellow posters feel that way- and I am definitely willing to make that bet- you're ignoring reality.

I respect your opinions on issues. It's totally your right to have them. But to come in and totally hijack a thread because I posted in it is totally rude. So don't go getting on your high horse about etiquette to me because there is no way I will ever follow your example especailly when you openly admit you were being rude as stated below:

I didn't hijack the thread because you posted in it. I responded to you. And by the way, I was under the impression that you were familiar with how messageboards work...?

So now I need to be gender specific when I post my opinions. lol Like someone else said in this thread. Cry me a river. If people are so offended by my point of view and delivery of it then they can put me on ignore or not read my threads. In fact I've suggested that to you many times but you don't listen. Maybe one day you will. Hm.. as a matter of fact I think I'll take advantage of that functionality right now. Thanks for playing.

I don't care whether you're gender specific when you're posting your opinions. I don't care whether people read anything you write or if they respect or pay attention to anything you have to say. I thought you might though.

[maniach]

I highly doubt that. I would argue that roads would be built more for the demand of where they should be instead of the state building them because it best fits what the lobbyist pocket books. I would also argue that projects wouldn't take as long and there wouldn't be as much traffic. John Stossel did a great 20/20 report about public vs private roads. I would suggest you google it and check it out.

I think it would be pretty difficult for John Stossel to educate a CIVIL ENGINEER on how roads work or should be paid for. I'm pretty immersed in things like public/private partnerships, public work programs, and fair share programs. I'm also a HUGE advocate of getting rid of the gas tax and tolling the absolute crap out of everyone on the road. Because what no one seems to want to admit, while they are bit*hing about being stuck in traffic at 6PM on their way home after work every night, is that the "gas tax" is really a "user fee". You pay the "fee" and the government (federal, state or local) allows you to use its roadways. Is it the best system in the world? Well living in a donor state with no income tax and a bunch of snowbirds clogging my roadway, I would say no, but until someone comes along with continuous open road tolling or some kind of other tolling mechanism that would work, I'm pretty ok with it.

Not to mention that probably 99.9% of roadways built in the country are constructed after a LOT of research -- traffic counts, bridge inspections, etc, that justify their construction/widening/replacement. Not every road in every state is a big fat earmark in some bill somewhere. Just because some dou*he in Alaska got a bridge to nowhere into SAFETEA-LU doesn't mean that every road is built that way.

Oh, right, and private roads -- not really private and if they are, they are generally horribly maintained. Most (large) roads that are constructed with private funds are actually public/private partnerships where the private concessionaire provides funding for the construction and a certain length of time of maintenance after which the roadway is turned over the to public entity it was constructed for (i.e. the state DOT).

Then we can get into things like codes. If the federal government (or local government, or state government) has no say in the funding of roads, how would they get a say in the design or construction thereof. I can imagine a lot more MNDOT style collapses if there were no codes for design and no specifications for construction -- all funded by the federal, state, and local governments. Plus you've got all the planning agencies involved -- if you think the roads are a mess now, imagine if you could just plop an 8-lane highway wherever you wanted to put one. Without permits or justification. All you need is to buy the land. And no environmental remediation of any kind... wetlands be damned, I want a road there!

See, it would be GREAT if we could just do away with the government and their stuffy old taxes, but it's unrealistic. As much as we don't want to admit it, they provide a service, and while they may not do it efficiently or economically, I seriously doubt for-profit companies would do so either. So, let's all just agree that we need taxes, we may just not need to be taxed so much if we were more efficient or economical.

[kam]

Um, I don't know if you're aware of this, but what I did was actually called "sharing an opinion" as well! And you are perfectly welcome to put me on ignore.


Says the guy who's constantly whining about how everyone makes "personal attacks" on him. Dude, I can't help it if you don't like how others react to you. You have a choice to either modify your behavior so you get a different response, or to continue what you're doing and get the same response. If I were the only one who reacted this way, I'd say you had a point. But when the majority of your fellow posters feel that way- and I am definitely willing to make that bet- you're ignoring reality.

I didn't hijack the thread because you posted in it. I responded to you. And by the way, I was under the impression that you were familiar with how messageboards work...?

I don't care whether you're gender specific when you're posting your opinions. I don't care whether people read anything you write or if they respect or pay attention to anything you have to say. I thought you might though.

Amen. When everyone is lost with exception of you, perhaps they are the ones who aren't lost.

[Red'sGirl]

And when you decide to just throw a road down where YOU want it to go, will you first hire an urban planner, a civil engineer, someone who knows where any electrical, gas, or fiber optic lines may be?

Or will ya just grab a space and start shoveling? Because I don't think it's as economical as you think.

And when the lightpost that you apparently buy and pay someone to hook up to the grid, falls over and demolishes a car, house, or God forbid, a life - thanks to your lowest bid contractor work, thank goodness you'll have the means to hire a good lawyer to keep the world from suing the pants off you.

[sxsw_dad]

I now get it. I think I now understand you, sxsw_dad. You, IMO, have an incredibly ...... well, wrong, opinion on the way that people in this country act.

Maybe. What I do know is that Americans are some of the most generous people in the world when it comes to donating money/time.

If we had no taxes, and just paid for services, YOU seem to think that people would pay for 1) what is needed and 2) what they really care about, and ultimately everything would get taken care of, but economically. Those that don't get money, etc. must not have a good product.

Yes you are correct I think the free market would identify the things that people want and need and provide those things for them. A business might have a good product that people don't want or need. Just because people may not buy a product doesn't mean it isn't good. It just means there's no market demand for it and the resources that went into making that product should and would get redistributed into other areas of the economy where they can produce something more efficiently. I mean why should that business be allowed to stay in business when no one wants to buy the product it makes? Isn't that a misallocation of resources?

BUT, the reality is that, without taxes, people would not likely pay that much more of their money for things outside of their home. With more money in their pockets, their bank accounts would fatten, their houses would get bigger, their cars would be updated, and their kid's college funds would be greater. They'd take a lot nicer vacations. And when they occasionally thought about it, they might donate a $100 here and there - most likely to the private schools that they send their kids. EVERYTHING else would be left to, "I'm sure others have already paid towards this, so I don't have to", or "why do I always have to pay towards roads, let someone else do it", or even "I don't care about that section of road because I don't drive in THAT part of town". The poor would end up living in a world that looks like a MAD MAX movie. And everyone would be out for themselves. It's - sadly- human nature. Most people only care about themselves and couldn't care less about doing something for the "greater good" - not even if it's practical and necessary. Passing the buck is as American as apple pie.

I would disagree with your assumption that things would turn out to be like MAD MAX. I mean for 140 years of our country's history we didn't have an income tax. Did we have a MAD MAX scenario then? Did people get what they need? Did we survive?

It's nice that you think it would be so great, but it wouldn't work.

It worked for 140 years or so.

Furthermore, if we even tried your little experiment, we'd never recover from it. That is why we have taxes. That is how we came to have grants, etc. If people had given so freely as you suggest, we wouldn't have developed the system we have. It didn't come out of a black hole - these things were developed to fill a need. You assume we don't have the need anymore, but most of us think we have a stronger need than every before.

You say "these things were developed to fill a need." I would argue that is it really a "need" if the market doesn't want it? If the government has to take money from tax payers and give it to GM so they can stay in business even though the market is saying that it doesn't want GM products any longer. Does the government really "need" to keep it in business?

fundamental differences.

You are absolutely correct about that. We both want the same thing (i.e. economic recovery, cure for cancer, safe place for abused children, etc) we just have different opinions on how to get there.

I think it would be pretty difficult for John Stossel to educate a CIVIL ENGINEER on how roads work or should be paid for.

You should watch the segment. It's pretty interesting idea.

I'm pretty immersed in things like public/private partnerships, public work programs, and fair share programs. I'm also a HUGE advocate of getting rid of the gas tax and tolling the absolute crap out of everyone on the road. Because what no one seems to want to admit, while they are bit*hing about being stuck in traffic at 6PM on their way home after work every night, is that the "gas tax" is really a "user fee". You pay the "fee" and the government (federal, state or local) allows you to use its roadways. Is it the best system in the world? Well living in a donor state with no income tax and a bunch of snowbirds clogging my roadway, I would say no, but until someone comes along with continuous open road tolling or some kind of other tolling mechanism that would work, I'm pretty ok with it.

I couldn't agree more with you about removing the gas tax! Now think about this scenario. Here they built roads with tax dollars, we pay gas tax, and they toll the road ways. Now how is that fair? Nice triple tax there right?

Not to mention that probably 99.9% of roadways built in the country are constructed after a LOT of research -- traffic counts, bridge inspections, etc, that justify their construction/widening/replacement. Not every road in every state is a big fat earmark in some bill somewhere. Just because some dou*he in Alaska got a bridge to nowhere into SAFETEA-LU doesn't mean that every road is built that way.

Are you suggesting that a private business wouldn't do these things either? I would say that a private business would do these things much better than the government would. See "bridge to nowhere" lol!

Oh, right, and private roads -- not really private and if they are, they are generally horribly maintained. Most (large) roads that are constructed with private funds are actually public/private partnerships where the private concessionaire provides funding for the construction and a certain length of time of maintenance after which the roadway is turned over the to public entity it was constructed for (i.e. the state DOT).

It's very hard to compete with the government. The government has all the advantages of being the government.

Then we can get into things like codes. If the federal government (or local government, or state government) has no say in the funding of roads, how would they get a say in the design or construction thereof. I can imagine a lot more MNDOT style collapses if there were no codes for design and no specifications for construction -- all funded by the federal, state, and local governments. Plus you've got all the planning agencies involved -- if you think the roads are a mess now, imagine if you could just plop an 8-lane highway wherever you wanted to put one. Without permits or justification. All you need is to buy the land. And no environmental remediation of any kind... wetlands be damned, I want a road there!

Well I think you are going to run into property rights issues if one would "just plop an 8-lane highway wherever you wanted to put one." I'm also sure you would run into property rights issues with regards to environmental issues. I know if I sold my land to a private company to build a road through it I would have some sort of environmental clause in the contract. I don't want them to ruin my land.

See, it would be GREAT if we could just do away with the government and their stuffy old taxes, but it's unrealistic. As much as we don't want to admit it, they provide a service, and while they may not do it efficiently or economically, I seriously doubt for-profit companies would do so either. So, let's all just agree that we need taxes, we may just not need to be taxed so much if we were more efficient or economical.

I agree it's unrealistic right now to do away with taxes. The government is far too big and the foreign policy is too expensive to get rid of it. However, I would argue that private businesses would do it more efficiently and economically. They are in it to create a profit. If their services or products suck no one will use them or buy them. That business will go out of business as it should. So like I said in a previous message. We are getting a value out of the system now (granted in my opinion not a very good value) but I believe that if the market were able to function without so much government it would be more efficient and productive and as a nation we would be more wealthy.

Amen. When everyone is lost with exception of you, perhaps they are the ones who aren't lost.

Or perhaps they surround them selves with everyone else who is lost and don't know any better because they never hear anything different?

And when you decide to just throw a road down where YOU want it to go, will you first hire an urban planner, a civil engineer, someone who knows where any electrical, gas, or fiber optic lines may be?

Are you suggesting that a private business wouldn't do any of these things?

Or will ya just grab a space and start shoveling? Because I don't think it's as economical as you think.

Guess we'll just have to disagree on this because I think it's a lot more economical than you might believe it to be.

And when the lightpost that you apparently buy and pay someone to hook up to the grid, falls over and demolishes a car, house, or God forbid, a life - thanks to your lowest bid contractor work, thank goodness you'll have the means to hire a good lawyer to keep the world from suing the pants off you.

The government does a lot of those lowest bid contractor work too you know?

[Red'sGirl]

I would disagree with your assumption that things would turn out to be like MAD MAX. I mean for 140 years of our country's history we didn't have an income tax. Did we have a MAD MAX scenario then? Did people get what they need? Did we survive?

you're speaking of the wold we lived in in past centuries. If we went back to an era where we only traveled as far as a horse could take us, communicated in longhand by letter or telegraph, lived typically near the land you were born, and only needed worn pathss instead of paved streets, let along highways, we could MAYBE recreate how we did it then. But today, blight would overtake. The wealthy would simply pay to have their trashed dumped into the poor areas (more than now) and our country would begin to crumble.

You say "these things were developed to fill a need." I would argue that is it really a "need" if the market doesn't want it? If the government has to take money from tax payers and give it to GM so they can stay in business even though the market is saying that it doesn't want GM products any longer. Does the government really "need" to keep it in business?


Are you suggesting that a private business wouldn't do these things either? I would say that a private business would do these things much better than the government would. See "bridge to nowhere" lol!

I think private business wouldn't be able to afford to do the diligence research that is truly required. Some might, but many would not. And the safety of structures, etc would decline rapidly.

The government does a lot of those lowest bid contractor work too you know?

true, but now that Haliburton is not longer the country's company for no-bid work, it won't be as easy to get those jobs that require actual fruition. It's not always good, but the government has to do too much research, etc to purposefully hire sub-par work. And if you don't really know everything you'd need for contruction, you'd be easier to con than the others. My brother works for NY City - basically using his degree and experience as an Urban Planner. My sister has run several major construction companies as a project manager. A contractor who didn't really know his stuff and tried to bluff his way through, or convince that certain materials were the best, would be blown out the water by them. But they cost money. Hence, he works for the government and she operates by winning jobs that come from grants or policy measures. You'd be hard pressed to be able to afford them.

[hub1176]

but I believe that if the market were able to function without so much government it would be more efficient and productive and as a nation we would be more wealthy.

Again, this already happened with disastrous results.

I would disagree with your assumption that things would turn out to be like MAD MAX. I mean for 140 years of our country's history we didn't have an income tax. Did we have a MAD MAX scenario then? Did people get what they need? Did we survive?

One might argue that many did not have the basics, but hey, they were probably just lazy and didn't want to work, right?

Maybe. What I do know is that Americans are some of the most generous people in the world when it comes to donating money/time.

Historically, private donations have never been able to fill the gap. It's that kind of thinking that got Hoover in trouble.