Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is the problem with the "I want my taxes to go towards these issues" logic. Say out of the 100 million people working they send their taxes and they don't want to give money (by-and-large) to say Medicaid (child healthcare) how do we fund a program that really has a need?
Well, that's the challenge, isn't it? --- Agreeing on what we as a society can support through our taxes. I'm certainly no anarchist; I recognize that there can be government programs which can do good. But, especially on the federal level, I think there's a tendency to extend the breadth of spending programs well beyond what is financially prudent.
It's not an all or nothing proposition, surely.
The point I was trying to make is that this is how we often see this scenario played out:
1) Politician (of either party) points out Social Issue X.
2) A large percentage of people acknowledge that this is a vexing issue.
3) Politician proposes a New Government Program to combat this issue, to a chorus of approval from supporters (and the grumbling of the opposition party).
The people who agree that Social Issue X is indeed a troublesome thing often automatically sign on to support the New Government Program, simply as a way of acknowledging that they, too, are troubled by Social Issue X --- impracticality, reduced liberty, higher taxes and soaring deficits be damned.
And anyone who questions the efficacy or financial viability of the New Government Program is painted as a hateful/racist/unpatriotic jerk.
Well, that's the challenge, isn't it? --- Agreeing on what we as a society can support through our taxes. I'm certainly no anarchist; I recognize that there can be government programs which can do good. But, especially on the federal level, I think there's a tendency to extend the breadth of spending programs well beyond what is financially prudent.
It's not an all or nothing proposition, surely.
The point I was trying to make is that this is how we often see this scenario played out:
1) Politician (of either party) points out Social Issue X.
2) A large percentage of people acknowledge that this is a vexing issue.
3) Politician proposes a New Government Program to combat this issue, to a chorus of approval from supporters (and the grumbling of the opposition party).
The people who agree that Social Issue X is indeed a troublesome thing often automatically sign on to support the New Government Program, simply as a way of acknowledging that they, too, are troubled by Social Issue X --- impracticality, reduced liberty, higher taxes and soaring deficits be damned.
And anyone who questions the efficacy or financial viability of the New Government Program is painted as a hateful/racist/unpatriotic jerk.
That's an over-simplification but it's true. The issue is some issues are not as cut and dry. Of course we should provide healthcare for poor children who have parents that can't afford it and have them be able to eat (and eat healthy.) Unemployment should not be federal which we are seeing us go away from that. These three are the main issues for benefits we get. Foreign subsidies and armed forces are questionable as subsidies don't help us but the armed forces (through contractors and the jobs created through contracts) does.
I wouldn't mind higher taxes exactly I don't know why we need low tax rates. Things ran smooth in the 1950's with dramatically higher tax rates.
That's an over-simplification but it's true. The issue is some issues are not as cut and dry. Of course we should provide healthcare for poor children who have parents that can't afford it and have them be able to eat (and eat healthy.) Unemployment should not be federal which we are seeing us go away from that. These three are the main issues for benefits we get. Foreign subsidies and armed forces are questionable as subsidies don't help us but the armed forces (through contractors and the jobs created through contracts) does.
I wouldn't mind higher taxes exactly I don't know why we need low tax rates. Things ran smooth in the 1950's with dramatically higher tax rates.
Why don't you provide some data from the 50's?
Despite the fact that automation and industrialization from WWII had dramatically increased our productivity post-war, the economy didn't boom. In fact, the 50's saw inflation, unstable growth and recession, and stagnation that resulted in some weak years in the 60's.
JFK's major economic plan was a reduction in tax rates to stimulate investment and private financial growth. And it was well received because we weren't doing all that well.
Despite the fact that automation and industrialization from WWII had dramatically increased our productivity post-war, the economy didn't boom. In fact, the 50's saw inflation, unstable growth and recession, and stagnation that resulted in some weak years in the 60's.
JFK's major economic plan was a reduction in tax rates to stimulate investment and private financial growth. And it was well received because we weren't doing all that well.
Every decade no matter if the tax rates were higher or lower had recessions and stagnation. The 80's had periods of both prosperity and two recessions despite Reagan tax cuts (one could be passed back to Carter for argument sake), the 90's saw a recession and a tax increase and we had a tax cut with prosperity for the latter half, the 2000's had another tax cut truly passed in the middle of the decade (despite two wars) but we had a major economic crash in 2008. There isn't a true correlation and more importantly causation between the two.
I want to truly preserve and maintain our public institutions. It's all we got
Our universities
Our medical and scientific research
Our public transportation "trains and busses"
Subsidies for hybrid cars and bicyclists
Medicare and Social Security
Better healthcare
Special education and rehabilitation services
Childcare for 2 parents working households
Veteran benefits
I want this stuff for my kids. I will pay an extra $1,500/year in taxes to bring this on. I think we all can do more for our nation and then we don't have to cut good services out that all the top happiest nations on the planet all have, and each one of them have balanced budgets. You want more out of this country you have to feed it first
feel free to write out a check or send cash. also do not ask for a refund on your federal taxes either.
I prefer to privatize everything and get almost all programs out of the federal governments hands. plus fire 90%+ federal employees as well.
You dont want to send any money in to DC now. It would probably end up being swallowed into a Republican entitlement program.
You never let up, do you? It goes to the general fund and is spent everywhere. Nothing is earmarked it is just spent as it comes out of thin air. It's the way it has been done for years. The federal government is not living up to its oath to submit/pass budgets; they merely raise the debt ceiling and let it go at that.
A single donation of $1M is nothing compared to what the government spends a day on salaries in DC.
I want to truly preserve and maintain our public institutions. It's all we got
Our universities
Our medical and scientific research
Our public transportation "trains and busses"
Subsidies for hybrid cars and bicyclists
Medicare and Social Security
Better healthcare
Special education and rehabilitation services
Childcare for 2 parents working households
Veteran benefits
I want this stuff for my kids. I will pay an extra $1,500/year in taxes to bring this on. I think we all can do more for our nation and then we don't have to cut good services out that all the top happiest nations on the planet all have, and each one of them have balanced budgets. You want more out of this country you have to feed it first
The biggest problem with us is waste, I remember hearing that some government agency (I believe the FDA or CDC) complained about the lack of funds to research and develop cures for Ebola all while spending millions during the same time frame on research pertaining to lesbians. It doesn't make sense honestly. I don't believe most people want cuts for the fun of it, but when you hear about waste it truly disgusts people like me and for me to give more to it doesn't make sense UNLESS the govt actually has a plan on how to spend more appropriately.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
