Cost of Government

[Michael]

http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0037109.cfm

[sgeeeee]

.

Quote:

". . .The good news for the total cost of government is that the regulatory burden is coming down a little bit with some of the deregulation under President Bush. . ."

Well . . . he loses all credibility with this statement. If you are running the largest deficit in the history of the world, how do you figure you've paid for everything simply because your tax bill for this year is paid? By this reasoning, we should just abolish taxes and let future generations pay all of our bills. We could celebrate Cost of Government Day on January 1. Who cares about future generations?

But beyond this nonsense is the basic problem with most anti-tax writing. Government collects taxes and provides services, jobs and benefits. Judging the success of government by looking only at tax rates is like judging the success of a business by only looking at the payroll expenses.

[wabmester]

I am all for higher taxes as long as somebody else is paying them.* * GO WAGE SLAVES!

[MRGALT2U]

"deregulation under President Bush" ?? What deregulation?
Did I miss something?
I know the crap keeps flowing out of Congress and last I checked Bush
hadn't vetoed anything. No cojones?

JG

[Sillysal]

wab - that would be me

[Newell]

Quote:

Originally Posted by - SG .Well . . . he loses all credibility with this statement.* If you are running the largest deficit in the history of the world, how do you figure you've paid for everything simply because your tax bill for this year is paid?* By this reasoning, we should just abolish taxes and let future generations pay all of our bills.* We could celebrate Cost of Government Day on January 1.* Who cares about future generations? But beyond this nonsense is the basic problem with most anti-tax writing.* Government collects taxes and provides services, jobs and benefits.* Judging the success of government by looking only at tax rates is like judging the success of a business by only looking at the payroll expenses.* *

SG,
I may be mistaken but my understandinding is that the Cost of Government Day reflects spending, not taxation as you are suggesting. Wouldn't that include deficits and obligations passed on to future generations? Who is the "he" that loses all credibility - Bill Wilson, the author of the article or Grover Norquist, president of Americans For Tax Reform?

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Thats one of the things that bugs me about this administration. Say things that arent true, and keep saying them and eventually many people will believe them...even after they've been outed in the media and proven false, high numbers continue to persist in believing them.

Its proof positive of the amazing connection between gullible people and mass media marketing...:P

[maddythebeagle]

Considering that there are so many tools to avoid taxes (legally), I always wonder why people gripe so much about it :

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Because they simply dont know about them or how to use them. A lot of people take the standard deduction and file the EZ form...

[Newell]

Quote:

Originally Posted by () Thats one of the things that bugs me about this administration.* Say things that arent true, and keep saying them and eventually many people will believe them...even after they've been outed in the media and proven false, high numbers continue to persist in believing them. Its proof positive of the amazing connection between gullible people and mass media marketing...:P

There must be something about this thread that I'm missing. How did the article that initiated this thread lead to another "let's blame Bush" tirade? Do a little research on the Cost of Government Day. Days worked to pay for government declined steadily during the Clinton Administration and rose during the Bush Administration until very recently. How does this lead to "this administration" saying "things that aren't true ... even after they've been outed in the media and proven false"?

[cute fuzzy bunny]

You're right, you did miss something.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me in the other thread how my factual statements would lead someone to come to the wrong conclusion.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldbykur There must be something about this thread that I'm missing. How did the article that initiated this thread lead to another "let's blame Bush" tirade?

Here's what you missed...

Quote:

Originally Posted by () ...my stress level is really good. I take it all out on you folks

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Actually I said "this administration" not "bush", although he's part of it I suppose. Not sure where the 'tirade' is either...

What he's missing is the campaign promises to deregulate coupled with the regular press releases saying regulation is being reduced. Not really. New regulations have been turned back, but virtually no 'deregulation' is being done.

The topic of conversation was flowing from cost of government through government claims of deregulation. Cost of government has gone up. There has been little or no 'deregulation'. Not what was promised or what shows up in press releases. Hence my comment.

[Newell]

(),

Thanks for enlightening me as to the logic of your comment.

As for the other thread, I had really hoped that I could just drop it and blame it on my paranoia.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Consider it dropped. Sorry to hurt you with my logic

[Michael]

Quote:

I am all for higher taxes as long as somebody else is paying them.

You pay for the taxes in higher living costs, even if your income tax is zero. There is a reason a hospital stay in the US is so much more expensive than a similar stay in Thailand.

[Michael]

Quote:

Government collects taxes and provides services, jobs and benefits.

Yes, but at what point do the services provided exceed what frugal living below their means people would choose if they had a choice? Why does so much that the government "provides" have to be of the caviar and chauffeured limousine variety? Does the government really need to consume half of what private workers produce?

[wabmester]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael You pay for the taxes in higher living costs, even if your income tax is zero.* There is a reason a hospital stay in the US is so much more expensive than a similar stay in Thailand.

No, that just means our taxes aren't high enough. A hospital stay in the US should be free, and would be if taxes were higher.

[sgeeeee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Yes, but at what point do the services provided exceed what frugal living below their means people would choose if they had a choice?* Why does so much that the government "provides" have to be of the caviar and chauffeured limousine variety?* Does the government really need to consume half of what private workers produce?

I never said we have the right balance today. I simply pointed out that, ". . .Judging the success of government by looking only at tax rates is like judging the success of a business by only looking at the payroll expenses."

I would be happy if I paid less taxes that went toward unjustified invasions of countries that pose no threat to us. I would be happy if I paid less taxes to make up for massive loop-holes of the ultra-wealthy. . .

But I would also be happy to pay more taxes if we could develop a viable medical system that didn't inflate at 4 to 10 times the inflation rate year after year. I would be happy to pay more taxes if we could use the money to salvage our suffering education system. . .

The point here, is that it doesn't make sense to de-couple taxes from benefits, services, jobs. Yet there is a conservative movement in this country that repeatedly does just that. :P

[Michael]

Quote:

But I would also be happy to pay more taxes if we could develop a viable medical system that didn't inflate at 4 to 10 times the inflation rate year after year.

Part of the reason medical inflation is so high is excessive government regulations.* For example, I am quite capable of reading a label.* Yet government regulations force me to pay 4 times the cost for meds so that someone can read the label for me (prescription meds cost 3-4 times more than they do after they go non prescription).* The more US politicians get involved, the more costs seem to go up.

Free meds like the rest of the western world would reduce the amount of money that special interest groups give the politicians.* We are more likely to get even more expensive meds, instead of free ones, as the politicians write more regulations.