The Most Unpopular Tax Policy Ever

[SHOCKvalue]

People I know who work for low wages many times have two or three jobs and do not get government assistance. If you work in the service industry here, that's what you do to make it from week to week. Is that morally unethical?

You live in a possibly the most isolated, tourist destination in all of the US. If one wants to live full-time where you do they either need to have a level of wealth not requiring work, or they should expect to work lots of crappy jobs and live in small confines with several other people of similar mind.

You can't possibly extrapolate the economics of your location to that of the rest of the country. People live where you do by choice, and so they either live with that choice in whatever capacity required, or they relocate.

[1979Shocker]

Do you live in an alternate reality where charities and 501c3's don't exist?

To get rid of welfare completely, and other government programs, the amount people give to charitable organizations and other groups today, is only a drop in the bucket of what is needed.

[SHOCKvalue]

This concept that an employed single parent (or other lower income, but working, individual or household) is "making it on their own" is a fallacy in our country.

Below is just a small list of the benefits doled out by the federal government for people who are not technically "on welfare" or "on food stamps," but who are otherwise still a dependent of the US taxpayer in some context:

-earned income credit
-WIC
-section 8 vouchers
-free lunch programs
-pell grants
-disability for the not-really-disabled (civilian, or sad and unpopular to say, some former military)
-home buying grants (FHA, VA, USDA, etc.)
-hybrid auto tax credits

I'm not throwing these programs under the bus, necessarily. I'm just saying that a TON more people are weight around the neck of the state and federal government than just the oft-referenced welfare/foodstamp folks. The money for the above has to come from somewhere; it does not invent itself in a vacuum.

[RoyalShock]

To get rid of welfare completely, and other government programs, the amount people give to charitable organizations and other groups today, is only a drop in the bucket of what is needed.

We won't get rid of welfare completely, but if we were to get the feds completely out of the equation, the dollars that do get spent won't have already had a cut taken out by corrupt federal bureaucrats who then tie strings and conditions to whatever they dole back out to the states.

The more local the solutions are, the better the money will be spent. This country is too damn big to solve issues at the federal level with any degree of fiscal responsibility.

[tropicalshox]

You live in a possibly the most isolated, tourist destination in all of the US. If one wants to live full-time where you do they either need to have a level of wealth not requiring work, or they should expect to work lots of crappy jobs and live in small confines with several other people of similar mind.

You can't possibly extrapolate the economics of your location to that of the rest of the country. People live where you do by choice, and so they either live with that choice in whatever capacity required, or they relocate.

What if all the workers leave? Those not having to work would not have a restaurant to go to and would even have to do thier own yard work! This more of a joke than anything else.

Some workers do leave mostly due to housing cost. There are few affordable housing options. It's a community problem that the community needs to solve. Glad to hear across America people don't have to work two or three jobs.

Edit. I'm happy to say we are working on affordable housing.

[SHOCKvalue]

The more local the solutions are, the better the money will be spent. This country is too damn big to solve issues at the federal level with any degree of fiscal responsibility.

Exactly. The Federal Government should provide for defense and infrastructure. The rest should be released to the states to provide for as they see fit, much in the same way the founding fathers envisioned. States would then have various levels of entitlement programs, and there would be a "market" so to speak for the residency choices of the US populace. People would relocate accordingly; tax rates would adjust accordingly. Those wanting the "full service" government would choose such and anticipate paying for it; those wanting the "bare bones" would choose such and anticipate paying for it.

[SHOCKvalue]

What if all the workers leave? Those not having to work would not have a restaurant to go to and would even have to do there own yard work! This more of a joke than anything else.

Some workers do leave mostly due to housing cost. There are few affordable housing options. It's a community problem that the community needs to solve. Glad to hear across America people don't have to work two or three jobs.

Again, nothing personal here, but if someone that I knew decided to move to say - Aspen - and then started complaining to me about lack of good jobs and the real estate market, I would probably just stare at them funny for a few seconds before I could formulate a response.

[Dave Stalwart]

Hey guys. You all look a little preoccupied with the great conversation going on in this thread, so I just wanted to remind you...

image.jpg

[jdshock]

Exactly. The Federal Government should provide for defense and infrastructure. The rest should be released to the states to provide for as they see fit, much in the same way the founding fathers envisioned. States would then have various levels of entitlement programs, and there would be a "market" so to speak for the residency choices of the US populace. People would relocate accordingly; tax rates would adjust accordingly. Those wanting the "full service" government would choose such and anticipate paying for it; those wanting the "bare bones" would choose such and anticipate paying for it.

Some states would become safe havens for the wealthy and others would have individuals with little taxable income. This exact same scenario happens with school funding. Inner city schools that depend on property taxes from individuals with lower incomes tax at a higher rate and still come up with less money than suburban schools that tax at a lower rate but have higher property values. The states with lots of entitlement programs might have incredibly high tax rates and still struggle to bring in a fraction of the tax revenue as the wealthier states that promise low tax rates. It needs to be either privatized or federal.

[SHOCKvalue]

Some states would become safe havens for the wealthy and others would have individuals with little taxable income. This exact same scenario happens with school funding. Inner city schools that depend on property taxes from individuals with lower incomes tax at a higher rate and still come up with less money than suburban schools that tax at a lower rate but have higher property values. The states with lots of entitlement programs might have incredibly high tax rates and still struggle to bring in a fraction of the tax revenue as the wealthier states that promise low tax rates. It needs to be either privatized or federal.

I'm not so sure on your premise. I suppose I agree in a vacuum. In reality the states that are currently heavy into their own entitlements, and whom the populace happily votes for such are those places popularly considered desirable - CA and roughly half of the US Mountain West, the Eastern Seaboard, etc. Conversely, those states where "no one wants to live" have lower taxes and lower levels of entitlements are out here in "flyover country."

If we assume those trends would stay constant, then people would still have to make a decision, over and above taxation. Pay 15% of your annual household income to live in Kansas or North Dakota (in all of their glory), or pay 35% of your annual household income to live in California, Washington, or New York (in all of their glory).

[tropicalshox]

A lot of people were born and raised here.

If you want to keep the town functioning well and jobs filled, you need to have a way workers can, and want to live here. I really don't hear complaints much. Just people having to leave because they can't make it.

[SHOCKvalue]

A lot of people were born and raised here.

If you want to keep the town functioning well and jobs filled, you need to have a way workers can, and want to live here. I really don't hear complaints much. Just people having to leave because they can't make it.

I don't know. I guess there are a laundry list of places I'd rather live than Wichita, Kansas, but I understand that short of winning the lottery my standard of living would suck in those places, so I don't make that choice. It is a zero sum situation.

[Play Angry]

Discussion of restraining federal spending has to begin with social security, Medicare/Medicaid and possibly defense. Otherwise you are firing your bullets at squirrels when the bears are plainly visible in the background.

Aging boomers will be a bigger drain on our national treasure than any combination of other factors.

[jdshock]

I'm not so sure on your premise. I suppose I agree in a vacuum. In reality the states that are currently heavy into their own entitlements, and whom the populace happily votes for such are those places popularly considered desirable - CA and roughly half of the US Mountain West, the Eastern Seaboard, etc. Conversely, those states where "no one wants to live" have lower taxes and lower levels of entitlements are out here in "flyover country."

If we assume those trends would stay constant, then people would still have to make a decision, over and above taxation. Pay 15% of your annual household income to live in Kansas or North Dakota (in all of their glory), or pay 35% of your annual household income to live in California, Washington, or New York (in all of their glory).

Certainly there's more to it than just tax rates, otherwise every individual with high income would live in a state like Texas or Washington that has no income tax. You were the one that mentioned there would be a "market" for state relocation and that "people would relocate accordingly." In that world, no state becomes the high-tax/high-entitlement-spending state.

I am just trying to envision a world where the federal government essentially only spends on defense and infrastructure and states are burdened with the full cost of every federal entitlement program. States that choose to provide a similar level of provision as the federal government does currently would have a major spending obligation. States like West Virginia and Mississippi with less draw (things like coastline, ski resorts, nice weather, etc) would struggle to attract people other than through the route of tax/social programs. Hypothetically, they could do one of two things. First, they could take a big social program approach. Few wealthy people would move to the state because it would be against their best interests to do so. If a wealthy person stays in a state with low tax rates, they can always choose to give to charity, so it makes little sense to actively move to a state with high taxes just to help people in poverty. Like I said, the state would then have to tax poor people at an obscene rate just to try to provide even the worst services. Those states could then choose to go a low tax route instead. Maybe they attract some wealthy individuals with this policy. The trouble is that both Mississippi and West Virginia have incredibly high rates of poverty as is, and it is expensive to relocate. Few of the impoverished individuals in those states would find it easy to relocate. They'd be stuck in a state with few programs to help them.

I think you're right that states like California, Colorado, and New York have luxuries that will always trump tax policies for some people. The fact that states like Kansas and North Dakota tend to have lower entitlement spending as is kind of proves this point, though. Those states would have a major incentive to spend as little as possible. In a world where the federal government does no entitlement spending, I don't think we'd have a state match all of the currently available programs, and I definitely don't think there'd be an increase any state.

[ShockdaWorld]

I personally don't like to say too much in the political arena, because I'm not well enough read to be anywhere as knowledgeable as most of you about it, so I prefer to just sit back and consume some of the information you guys put forth. I do have a question regarding social security though. I understand and agree that something needs to be corrected, but my question is why should people that have paid into social security their whole lives end up not getting back their portion when they retire? I would disagree with that conclusion if that is indeed where we are heading. Otherwise, it becomes just another tax for the government to waste on whatever they want rather than putting it back into the pockets it's been taken out of for 40+ years for some. Maybe I just misunderstand what it was originally intended for, but imo, if you've paid into it, you should get your share back. If you haven't paid in, you also get your share back. Your share just happens to be zero.