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.
I do think that over the last 60 years we have allowed our government to steal from all of us (certainly our children's future).
It funds things some do not believe in (ex: military if you are lefty; welfare if you are a far righty)
It funds a few well connected people and it allows politicians and bureaucrats to have far too much power in this country. So yes - it is just plain theft.
You guys always want to use the corrupt power of government to fund your views of how society should be. Frankly, you would be much happier if you moved away from the obvious greed and envy you harbor for what others have; and figure out how to fund your communal needs without government.
Geez - Just go out and do it instead of the constant noise and complaining for more from government.
As to your example: I really could care less what someone else's tax rate is and what he/she has going for them. If they did these things lawfully - then good for them. Further, you know as well as I; that you would do the same damn thing.
How much do Oprah, Warren Buffet and other rich libs donate to government above their legal obligation (tax)? Not one damn penny I bet. This does not make them bad people, just hypocrites.
You still have not answered my questions -
How much is enough?
What would you do with the tax money you collected from the "rich"
Is increasing taxes on "rich" a solution to our structural problems?
I do think that over the last 60 years we have allowed our government to steal from all of us (certainly our children's future).
It funds things some do not believe in (ex: military if you are lefty; welfare if you are a far righty)
It funds a few well connected people and it allows politicians and bureaucrats to have far too much power in this country. So yes - it is just plain theft.
You guys always want to use the corrupt power of government to fund your views of how society should be. Frankly, you would be much happier if you moved away from the obvious greed and envy you harbor for what others have; and figure out how to fund your communal needs without government.
Geez - Just go out and do it instead of the constant noise and complaining for more from government.
As to your example: I really could care less what someone else's tax rate is and what he/she has going for them. If they did these things lawfully - then good for them. Further, you know as well as I; that you would do the same damn thing.
How much do Oprah, Warren Buffet and other rich libs donate to government above their legal obligation (tax)? Not one damn penny I bet. This does not make them bad people, just hypocrites.
You still have not answered my questions -
How much is enough?
What would you do with the tax money you collected from the "rich"
Is increasing taxes on "rich" a solution to our structural problems?
I really am interested in knowing the answers.
As to original topic: rent control is bad.
Okay, your first half statement still bothers me, I guess I am to assume you would much rather go back to the era of free enterprise were companies owned their employees by owning their property and houses, basically making them indebted to their employer without having any health regulations. But again, you are just beating around the political banter rather than looking honestly what we all want out of our country and government.
And you say you don't care how much someone above you is taxed even if it is much less than you, but you are the one that brought up the talking point of the bottom 50% not paying taxes, so do you care about how much others pay or not because I am truly confused by your point of view on this.
As for your questions 30-35% depending on how much you make. If someone makes below the cost of living, then their taxes should go down because they clearly are not making enough to live and it would be wrong to take their tax dollars. For those that are in the middle their taxes should be around 15-25%. As for the wealthy 30-35% and all income should be taxed, not just up to a certain dollar, off shore accounts and transactions should be taxed and corporations should be taxed 20-30% with little to no loopholes to get out of that other than temporary tax reliefs when dealing with economic issues.
Then from there where the money should be spent, the government should be involved in collective society issues, healthcare, education, infrastructure, environmental protection, and security. Less should be spent on special interests on the federal level, that should be more dealt with at the state level who would have better control on where the money is going.
We also need to get away from this ridiculous 60 vote problem that is making it impossible for the government to do even the simplest of things a drawn out fight that goes nowhere.
I hope that better answers your questions, and feel free to ask more.
Now first of all, I don't make much of a distinction between rent control on the one hand, and no rent control but subsidy or low-income public housing on the other. My concern is with housing the extremely poor who would be homeless and begging in the streets otherwise, so I don't care which method is used provide that shelter. Rent controls might be a little more effective for the working poor who may not know about subsidy programs, while subsidies are necessary for those disabled who wouldn't have enough income to even come up with the rent, not to speak of first last and security. Both a light, small amount of rent control, and subsidy systems, are a good idea.
Rent controls don't have to be the stupidest possible rent controls as in NYC, like many other things in life it's best to hire some intelligent and wise people to design the system. (It's analogous to the best argument rightwingers can come up with against socialism, where they insist it can't work because it didn't work in Marxist socialisms such as Russia, while ignoring Sweden).
There wouldn't be much sense in having a nation or paying taxes if there were no implied social contract guaranteeing a very basic safety net: at the very least the essentials for life such as food, clothing, shelter, and medical care if the citizen becomes disabled, unemployed, or elderly. Believe it or not, that can happen even to conservatives, and insurances against it don't always work! (yes, I've seen rightwingers such as Ayn Rand reduced to dependence on Social Security). That's in addition to the other standard things the society provides such as universal education, fire protection, police protection. These are things humans need for a decent quality of life, and if a country isn't providing them it shouldn't expect allegiance or easy collection of taxes.
I live in ca & we have rent control here. In the past 13 yrs my rent has increased $95.00. This yr my rent increases $3.00 mo & i pay 2.95 rent control fee. When i first moved to yucaipa rent control was .50 cents a month. The city rakes in ALOT of money from rent control but im not sure what they do with it. Our rent increase is based on 80% o the cpi which increased again to 1.75%. I expect the rent increase to be more then 3 bucks in 2013. Without rent control a landlord can raise the rent a few xs a year with no max. Some landlords are decent caring people & some are greedy rat bastards. God will get the later ones.
Those looking for rent control they may have to consider moving...
A number of California cities have Rent Control ordinances and even those cities have rental turn-overs.
The most down the middle approach, in my opinion, is rent control limited to the CPI coupled with vacancy decontrol... so when a tenant moves... the landlord is free to try and rent at market. Occupied unit rent increases are tied to the CPI giving some stability...
Most ordinances have provisions for owners to recover increases in taxes and fees...
Also, rent controlled property generally brings in much less in property taxes over the long term because multiple units are often valued for the income produced... some counties do not want to limit revenue enhancements caused be rising rents and renovations.
As with any law... the implications are often far reaching...
Okay, your first half statement still bothers me, I guess I am to assume you would much rather go back to the era of free enterprise were companies owned their employees by owning their property and houses, basically making them indebted to their employer without having any health regulations. But again, you are just beating around the political banter rather than looking honestly what we all want out of our country and government.
And you say you don't care how much someone above you is taxed even if it is much less than you, but you are the one that brought up the talking point of the bottom 50% not paying taxes, so do you care about how much others pay or not because I am truly confused by your point of view on this.
As for your questions 30-35% depending on how much you make. If someone makes below the cost of living, then their taxes should go down because they clearly are not making enough to live and it would be wrong to take their tax dollars. For those that are in the middle their taxes should be around 15-25%. As for the wealthy 30-35% and all income should be taxed, not just up to a certain dollar, off shore accounts and transactions should be taxed and corporations should be taxed 20-30% with little to no loopholes to get out of that other than temporary tax reliefs when dealing with economic issues.
Then from there where the money should be spent, the government should be involved in collective society issues, healthcare, education, infrastructure, environmental protection, and security. Less should be spent on special interests on the federal level, that should be more dealt with at the state level who would have better control on where the money is going.
We also need to get away from this ridiculous 60 vote problem that is making it impossible for the government to do even the simplest of things a drawn out fight that goes nowhere.
I hope that better answers your questions, and feel free to ask more.
Thank you for providing answers. I apppreciate the time it took to do this.
I suppose on a few basic things we would agree, but for me the devil is always in the details.
Your percentages are lines in the sand, fair enough. Gotta start somewhere. I do think though that 35% is a demotivator to productive people and this could decrease growth potential, which in turn could lead to decreased revenue from tax.
I do totally disagree that there should be a zero tax rate. Everyone should contribute, even at a marginal level; not for the tax value but to foster the mindset that ALL need to be productive, contributing members of society. It makes for a weak people when 50% are just takers. It fosters bad thought process in the voting booth as certain people will vote based on what they perceive they could potentially steal from others. Long term 50% not paying into the system is just not good practice.
As far as your expenditures are concerned, my issue is that all the topics you list have great potential to become (and actually already have) gigantic babies suckling on the taxpayers. This has created unsustainable debt levels. Regardless of tax rates, no country can sustain the expenditure levels that the US is currently experiencing. In a few years it will take one trillion dollars/year just to pay interest. This is one trillion dollars lost for which there is 0 return. This should scare the sh-- out of everyone!
You know as well as I do that due to corruption, hunger for power, special interests etc, there wil never be a time when we say "Ah ha - we have created a completly perfect education system. No more is required." Just not gonna happen in this sytem. This baby will never grow up and just keep sucking and sucking.
To me, the current system is unsustainable and not due to rich "not paying a fair share", rather the system itself is broken.
I would propose that instead of always asking for more from others and government, Interested groups should make choices and start taking it upon themselves to start schools, clinics, incentify others on enviromental issues or whatever cause you fancy.
Start thinking about how to get government out. Ask for your tax dollars back and solve problems w/o government. It would not be easy, but long term it certainly would make for a stronger people and a bettrer society.
Anyway thanks for your reply. I really do appreciate it.
Thank you for providing answers. I apppreciate the time it took to do this.
I suppose on a few basic things we would agree, but for me the devil is always in the details.
Your percentages are lines in the sand, fair enough. Gotta start somewhere. I do think though that 35% is a demotivator to productive people and this could decrease growth potential, which in turn could lead to decreased revenue from tax.
I do totally disagree that there should be a zero tax rate. Everyone should contribute, even at a marginal level; not for the tax value but to foster the mindset that ALL need to be productive, contributing members of society. It makes for a weak people when 50% are just takers. It fosters bad thought process in the voting booth as certain people will vote based on what they perceive they could potentially steal from others. Long term 50% not paying into the system is just not good practice.
As far as your expenditures are concerned, my issue is that all the topics you list have great potential to become (and actually already have) gigantic babies suckling on the taxpayers. This has created unsustainable debt levels. Regardless of tax rates, no country can sustain the expenditure levels that the US is currently experiencing. In a few years it will take one trillion dollars/year just to pay interest. This is one trillion dollars lost for which there is 0 return. This should scare the sh-- out of everyone!
You know as well as I do that due to corruption, hunger for power, special interests etc, there wil never be a time when we say "Ah ha - we have created a completly perfect education system. No more is required." Just not gonna happen in this sytem. This baby will never grow up and just keep sucking and sucking.
To me, the current system is unsustainable and not due to rich "not paying a fair share", rather the system itself is broken.
I would propose that instead of always asking for more from others and government, Interested groups should make choices and start taking it upon themselves to start schools, clinics, incentify others on enviromental issues or whatever cause you fancy.
Start thinking about how to get government out. Ask for your tax dollars back and solve problems w/o government. It would not be easy, but long term it certainly would make for a stronger people and a bettrer society.
Anyway thanks for your reply. I really do appreciate it.
I understand your point of view on this, the individual is supreme and the only one that can properly control one's life, which is very true, but we are not hunters and gatherers, we are still a society of people and must function accordingly.
Currently I am apart of that bottom 50%, I will be getting all my tax dollars back this April, but every check the government takes taxes out and collects the interest off the money they are holding for the year, so it is impossible to say I don't pay taxes when it is coming out of each check.
Also, just because someone is getting all their tax dollars back doesn't mean they are sucking off the government, it just means they (we) are not making enough money to actually live, as of right now I am fortunate enough to be single with no kids, thus making it easier for me to budget my life accordingly, but if I had dependents then I would definitely need to be making more to survive. (again that doesn't go into my future prospects or mean I am lazy by any means, it just means I work at a low paying job and hope to later move into the field I studied in to get a job in something I have more interest in, but that is another topic.)
As for the Ahha! moment in education, there is never going to be one because there is always going to be more to learn, and it is our duty to future generations to provide them with the tools to stay competitive as a society when ranked with other societies around the world. It is just a simple fact of the world we live in.
How is 30-35% a demotivator when it is only the very wealthy that would be paying that on their incomes that they took in for the year? They are still keeping 65-70% of their wealth they made for the year and are still extremely rich. Besides, people like Romney aren't working, he living of his money making him more money, so I don't know how that can be more of a demotivator if he isn't doing anything and just running for office for the fun of it. Someone who is bringing in multi millions a year for an income isn't going to stop doing that to be more in line with the middle class because they don't want to be taxed that much, which would still be extremely low taxes on that percentage when you look at our country's taxes over its history. Another issue with that is that the top wealthiest have had their taxes at an all time low thanks to Bush (and later Obama and Congress for keeping it all alive, those tax cuts should be killed for everyone because it does nothing but hurt the country, not make it better.)
The final issue I have with this is in your last paragraph, get government out of what? That is my question to you.
Do you want to get rid of government all together? Should we move to a tribe system? Should the government only be involved in some things? and if so, what things and how much?
This whole get government out of things mentality makes me nervous and curious what our future will hold because if we go to far with this, we could potentially see the collapse of the country as areas break off to form their own countries, or lets say we reach a point where the states have more power and don't send money to the federal level anymore, just keeps that money at home (which I would be fine with because I get annoyed paying for the Republican's way of life when it is most of the blue states that are giving away more on the dollar than red states, which that would be an interesting experiment to see what happens when you cut the funding off from poor red states.)
The expenditures I am much less concerned with, personally I would love to see our country cut the military fund in half and use that money and then some to rebuild and repair our infrastructure, roads, airports, trains, bikes, basically if it moves the government should be repairing it. That would put a tremendous amount of people to work, and many of them would be our men and women coming back from war and leaving the military for civilian work. By doing this, it would create a massive amount of money in the pockets of the people, this in turn would cause them to start spending and investing more, which would lead to more people working to help in the service industries, during that we could easily remove the burden of healthcare from the employer and put it on the people of the country (which no one should not have healthcare, this is 2012, from birth to death you should have healthcare, we are not animals, we are a society.) Removing healthcare from the employer would free up money for the private industry to invest more in the American worker and hire more people, it would also make it easier for people to go off and start those businesses you mentioned because they would no longer be tied to their job for healthcare needs and would be easier for them to start a business without worrying about that same issue their former employer had to worry about. But this is all just a pipe dream because their is no way in hell our government will come to this idea because it is much easier to spend their time drumming up more money from the select few to keep their political positions in tack than it is to worry about the needs of the American people (unless that need is convenient to them with whatever they are saying.)
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,164,711 times
Reputation: 8105
fantastic posts, Urbanlife.
I'm not as patient, so I think smaller:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccjarider
.......I really do want to understand how the collective mindset thinks stealing more from others to fund inefficiency and train people that living on a government dole instead of striving towards personal success is good for the country.
Where is this "dole" you're talking about? Do you believe that there's some public program where people can sign up to get free money just because they don't feel like working?
The reasons for getting that pittance to live on together with public housing and health care are because a person is disabled (such as blindness or mental illness), single parent, elderly, or whose unemployment insurance has run out without them being able to find work again.
As far as I know, only scammers collect govt money without having a valid reason, and they're breaking the law. If you see people doing that, you ought to report them.
Where is this "dole" you're talking about? Do you believe that there's some public program where people can sign up to get free money just because they don't feel like working?
The reasons for getting that pittance to live on together with public housing and health care are because a person is disabled (such as blindness or mental illness), single parent, elderly, or whose unemployment insurance has run out without them being able to find work again.
As far as I know, only scammers collect govt money without having a valid reason, and they're breaking the law. If you see people doing that, you ought to report them.
Don't forget General Assistance that is offered in some jurisdictions...
Yes... there are scammers and working in the medical field... the definition of disabled continues to expand...
There are plenty of people who receive assistance today that would not have been eligible in the past...
A study showing a family of 5 living in the San Francisco Bay Area would have to earn in the mid 60k range to support the lifestyle of the same family maximizing all assistance...
Section 8 housing allowance for a 3 bedroom is around $2000 a month and a family with very little income is paying a couple hundred of that at most...
Then there is Health Care... a family of 5 with modest coverage is anywhere between $600 t0 $1000 a month.
Then there is the school meal programs and after school care.
Add to that education tuition waivers and it is not hard to see how much in earnings are needed...
Remember, depending on circumstances... a person earning $60k does not take home 60k...
I understand your point of view on this, the individual is supreme and the only one that can properly control one's life, which is very true, but we are not hunters and gatherers, we are still a society of people and must function accordingly.
Currently I am apart of that bottom 50%, I will be getting all my tax dollars back this April, but every check the government takes taxes out and collects the interest off the money they are holding for the year, so it is impossible to say I don't pay taxes when it is coming out of each check.
Also, just because someone is getting all their tax dollars back doesn't mean they are sucking off the government, it just means they (we) are not making enough money to actually live, as of right now I am fortunate enough to be single with no kids, thus making it easier for me to budget my life accordingly, but if I had dependents then I would definitely need to be making more to survive. (again that doesn't go into my future prospects or mean I am lazy by any means, it just means I work at a low paying job and hope to later move into the field I studied in to get a job in something I have more interest in, but that is another topic.)
As for the Ahha! moment in education, there is never going to be one because there is always going to be more to learn, and it is our duty to future generations to provide them with the tools to stay competitive as a society when ranked with other societies around the world. It is just a simple fact of the world we live in.
How is 30-35% a demotivator when it is only the very wealthy that would be paying that on their incomes that they took in for the year? They are still keeping 65-70% of their wealth they made for the year and are still extremely rich. Besides, people like Romney aren't working, he living of his money making him more money, so I don't know how that can be more of a demotivator if he isn't doing anything and just running for office for the fun of it. Someone who is bringing in multi millions a year for an income isn't going to stop doing that to be more in line with the middle class because they don't want to be taxed that much, which would still be extremely low taxes on that percentage when you look at our country's taxes over its history. Another issue with that is that the top wealthiest have had their taxes at an all time low thanks to Bush (and later Obama and Congress for keeping it all alive, those tax cuts should be killed for everyone because it does nothing but hurt the country, not make it better.)
The final issue I have with this is in your last paragraph, get government out of what? That is my question to you.
Do you want to get rid of government all together? Should we move to a tribe system? Should the government only be involved in some things? and if so, what things and how much?
This whole get government out of things mentality makes me nervous and curious what our future will hold because if we go to far with this, we could potentially see the collapse of the country as areas break off to form their own countries, or lets say we reach a point where the states have more power and don't send money to the federal level anymore, just keeps that money at home (which I would be fine with because I get annoyed paying for the Republican's way of life when it is most of the blue states that are giving away more on the dollar than red states, which that would be an interesting experiment to see what happens when you cut the funding off from poor red states.)
The expenditures I am much less concerned with, personally I would love to see our country cut the military fund in half and use that money and then some to rebuild and repair our infrastructure, roads, airports, trains, bikes, basically if it moves the government should be repairing it. That would put a tremendous amount of people to work, and many of them would be our men and women coming back from war and leaving the military for civilian work. By doing this, it would create a massive amount of money in the pockets of the people, this in turn would cause them to start spending and investing more, which would lead to more people working to help in the service industries, during that we could easily remove the burden of healthcare from the employer and put it on the people of the country (which no one should not have healthcare, this is 2012, from birth to death you should have healthcare, we are not animals, we are a society.) Removing healthcare from the employer would free up money for the private industry to invest more in the American worker and hire more people, it would also make it easier for people to go off and start those businesses you mentioned because they would no longer be tied to their job for healthcare needs and would be easier for them to start a business without worrying about that same issue their former employer had to worry about. But this is all just a pipe dream because their is no way in hell our government will come to this idea because it is much easier to spend their time drumming up more money from the select few to keep their political positions in tack than it is to worry about the needs of the American people (unless that need is convenient to them with whatever they are saying.)
Thanks for reply.
I don't think we will ever come to agreement but hey this is America and the good thing is we can have disagreement.
I have a few response.
1. You do not pay federal tax. The money comes back to you. In many cases, due to credits, people get back more than they had withdrawn. (Social redistribution of the highest order)
It is true you lose the use of your money and corresponding interest. Do you realize the current income tax system was established by people who think more like you? More government involvement in people's lives and wealth without the public even realizing what is happening.
I would prefer to keep all my income and then "pay the bill" on April 15. However if we did that, there would be an uproar as people realized what the Federal governemt cost them. The beauty for government in the current system is; human nature forgets about the income lost every week due to tax. When I moved from IL to OR, I was initially shocked at the OR income tax that comes out of my paycheck. (highway robbery, no other way to describe it). However we get used to these thngs over time and thus government wins.
2. You state we have duty to future society. OK- fair enough.
I do not think this means increasing government expenditures in education, environement or whatever cause du joir is in vogue today. Government involvement does NOT mean solution. It just means corruption, political agenda and innefficieny. I have enough relatives working in various local, state and national governement jobs all across this country to see it firsthand. Some of these folks have jobs that just plain should not exist - period. What a waste!
I thnk you feel government is a viable solution to many things. I prefer to limit govenment and let people solve problems that make sense in their lives.
As I stated in my post, we are approaching the point where a large percentage of GDP will go just to service our debt. There will be no money for ANYTHING else. Taxing the "rich" at 100% wil not solve that dilema,. There are not enough rich to do that.
Our duty to future society is to leave them with a fiscally sound country, not some union dominated, crappy education system and excessive bureacracy.
Youru solutions involve more of this. For example - putting government in charge of healthcare is an absolutely horrible idea. Currently this country has best health care in wolrd and putting govt' bureacrats in charge of this is a horribly destructive idea.
Do not mention Europe or Canada to me as examples where it works. For one thing, they are monocultures whereas the US is not. I have worked in and traveled throughout Europe to know that there systems will not work here. It is mostly a cutlural issue, more than anything.
On a personal note, I hope the field you have interest in is one in which there is a need and for which you can secure gainful employment.
Rent control is a vestige of wage and price controls during WWII, as is the link between a job and health insurance. Rent control disappeared after the war in all but a couple major cities as sufficient housing was constructed to accommodate the population.
Rent control distorts the housing market, it won't happen here. Various programs were established to provide affordable housing to low income people but demand has out-striped the availability of resources. Unfortunately some tenants will need to move. Don't wait until you receive notice of rent increase, if your building is sold (or up for sale) anticipate that rents will go up. Preempt this by getting on the list of my local housing agency AND look for an apartment owned by a small landlord as their holdings are less likely to be of interest to investors. Do as good a background check on the landlord as they will on you.. learn their values, ask about tenant turnover, find out if you have common acquaintances (this is still a small town) to see if you can get a read on how well they treat others. You can find out who owns a building on Portland Maps.
Don't just wring your hands, have a plan.
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.
