AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

I already answered your questions, Fox, and see no reason to repeat myself.

Are you in the highest tax bracket? I doubt it. If not, your taxation will be unaffected by the changes. If you were, than the changes are not large enough to stop you from giving IF you truly are doing so to be helpful, and not for a tax break.

You can assert that things have been 'proven' all you like, it doesn't make it true.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Good point, Advocate; school tuition is also counted as "donations," but it's only because it makes sense to do so. They have paid for public school education like everybody else, and the tuition to church school is like payment it a second time. It makes sense, but it does over-blow the definition of "donation" on our tax returns.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I don't base my observations on the direct taxes that I pay. I base my observations on my bottom line--the money that I have available to spend, save, invest, or give away as I am obligated to do or choose to do.

There is no way that President Obama's agenda is going to improve my bottom line and there is every indication that it will reduce it. Why? Because my bottom line is dependent on the success of those rich folks that you and he seem to think have way too much money. You take them down, and you take me and everybody else--which is just about everybody who works in the private sector--down with them.

And I don't recall seeing where you answered the question of why you think the government is a better judge of how to use your money on your behalf than you are. Did I miss that?

I did see that you referred to MACean principles as stupid. I don't suppose you would care to pick one and provide a rationale for why it is stupid.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't base my observations on the direct taxes that I pay. I base my observations on my bottom line--the money that I have available to spend, save, invest, or give away as I am obligated to do or choose to do.

There is no way that President Obama's agenda is going to improve my bottom line and there is every indication that it will reduce it. Why? Because my bottom line is dependent on the success of those rich folks that you and he seem to think have way too much money. You take them down, and you take me and everybody else--which is just about everybody who works in the private sector--down with them.

So, in the 90's, when we had higher taxation, it took you and everyone else in the private sector down? You all did really terrible then? Small businesses suffered and the country was hurt b.c of it?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Quote:

And I don't recall seeing where you answered the question of why you think the government is a better judge of how to use your money on your behalf than you are. Did I miss that?

Collectively, our tax funds can pay for gigantic projects that individually we cannot possibly manage. Projects that charities cannot manage. And it's not like I'm suffering under the levels of taxation we currently have. We also have to fund things that are not and never will be profitable in any way.

I remind you again that the Gov't has been improving this country, using tax dollars, for over 200 years. No private entity or charity can match that record, not even close. And they will continue to do so.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

It is the form of taxation that makes the real difference, not the amount of the taxation. But yes, when the tax rates were reduced, especially the capital gains tax rate, my bottom line improved significantly even though the tax rates did not apply directly to me. That makes me believe that I would have done better in the 1990's had those tax rates been in place at that time.

The fact is, that tax rates do not perpetually improve the situation but carefully managed tax reductions do spur economic growth. It has been proved time and time and again. After awhile such growth levels out and does not continue, but the new level of GDP is higher than the old. Likewise punative taxes do not slow down economic growth beyond a certain point, but after it levels out, the general level of GDP is less than it would have been without the punative taxes.

Why do you think the government is a better judge of how to spend your money than you are?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Re: Advocate (Post 3608070)
"Good point, Advocate; school tuition is also counted as "donations," but it's only because it makes sense to do so. They have paid for public school education like everybody else, and the tuition to church school is like payment it a second time. It makes sense, but it does over-blow the definition of "donation" on our tax returns"

With all due respect, you don't make much sense. E.g., it doesn't make sense to lump tuition payments with charitable donations. The former are self-serving, and not disinterested donations to a charity. Tuition is what is paid to go to school. It is not somehow a double payment.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxie wrote:

Quote:

"...my bottom line is dependent on the success of those rich folks that you and he seem to think have way too much money."

Please be precise and tell us how those "rich folks" are the basis of your "bottom line?"

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Why do you think the government is a better judge of how to spend your money than you are?

How many times must I repeat myself? I cannot manage large, multi-year projects which affect a huge number of citizens, and neither can any charity. Our government has an excellent history of getting large projects done, though; what makes you think that your individual drives and desires are somehow a better way to get projects done than a professional's judgment?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Why do you think the government is a better judge of how to spend your money than you are?

How many times must I repeat myself? I cannot manage large, multi-year projects which affect a huge number of citizens, and neither can any charity. Our government has an excellent history of getting large projects done, though; what makes you think that your individual drives and desires are somehow a better way to get projects done than a professional's judgment?

Cycloptichorn

Your credulity with respect to the efficiency of government managed projects is perhaps encouraging. However, the facts don't support your assertion. Government has indeed managed numerous - some quite remarkable - projects that have ultimately accomplished their intended purpose, however the efficiency with which they were accomplished is generally far less than the private sector. In virtually every case in which there are comparable activities the cost of government projects, compared to similar activities in the private sector, is much greater, and the quality often less.

Private and parochial schools are a good example. They generally do a much better job and for far less/capita than do our public schools.

Government bureaucracies also tend to seek ever increasing expansion of their power and scope, and to suppress competition (which generally makes them look bad) from other agencies or the private sector in particular. CALTRANS is an excellent example - not to mention the new bay bridge project.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I'm not talking about big projects. I'm talking about providing basic fundamental needs for the people--food, housing, clothing, education, a job, opportunities, pursuit of happiness. Show me how the federal government has been more efficient, effective, and/or economical in providing any of these things on a small scale or large scale than has the private sector.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Why do you think the government is a better judge of how to spend your money than you are?

How many times must I repeat myself? I cannot manage large, multi-year projects which affect a huge number of citizens, and neither can any charity. Our government has an excellent history of getting large projects done, though; what makes you think that your individual drives and desires are somehow a better way to get projects done than a professional's judgment?

Cycloptichorn

Your credulity with respect to the efficiency of government managed projects is perhaps encouraging. However, the facts don't support your assertion. Government has indeed managed numerous - some quite remarkable - projects that have ultimately accomplished their intended purpose, however the efficiency with which they were accomplished is generally far less than the private sector. In virtually every case in which there are comparable activities the cost of government projects, compared to similar activities in the private sector, is much greater, and the quality often less.

Oh, do you pretend that the purpose of Government is efficiency? I do not. It is Redundancy.

Can you tell me what private sector companies will invest their time and effort into projects which will never show a financial return for them?

Quote:

Private and parochial schools are a good example. They generally do a much better job and for far less/capita than do our public schools.

They face different challenges. Private schools can deny membership to low-performing students or 'troubled' students. Public schools cannot. Therefore, your comparison here is meaningless. Private schools have higher scores b/c of their structure of admission, not because of any superiority of teaching due to privatization.

Quote:

Government bureaucracies also tend to seek ever increasing expansion of their power and scope, and to suppress competition (which generally makes them look bad) from other agencies or the private sector in particular. CALTRANS is an excellent example - not to mention the new bay bridge project.

What private company would build a necessary new bridge of that scope? What investor would sink money into such a project?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

It is appropriate for San Francisco and Oakland to cooperatively fund a bridge shared by both. Given the importance of the bridge to the State of Caifornia, I could even go for some state funds being included. It is not appropriate for the federal government to build a bridge between those two cities.

And, in my opinion, the best way to efficiently get the bridge built at the least cost to the taxpayer is to put it out to bids to private contractors with the experience and capability to do such a largescale project and who don't need all the money up front. The contract should offer financial rewards for coming in at or under budget, for completing the project on or ahead of schedule, and should impose appropriate financial penalities for going over budget, for not completing the project within a specified timeframe, or failing to meet the specific quality standards required for the bridge. Payment for each phase should be rendered when completed according to the contract.

In my opinion, when there is no penalty for inefficiency, shoddy work, failing to meet schedules or budgets, and/or the contracts are awarded as payback or favors by those in government, or government supervisors can make really bad decisions with impunity, you have a recipe for the the typical government project that runs behind schedule, way over budget with results that are frequently less than what we hoped. Those in the private sector who operate that way are usually quickly out of business . Those in government or those enabled by government to operate that way just shrug and say 'oh well' and then figure out some palatable way to raise your taxes to cover the additional cost.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Is it your experience that private contractors for the State and Federal governments come in under-budget and under-time? I wonder if the term 'cost overrun' rings a bell?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

It is my experience that those contractors who are penalized for going over budget and substantially over schedule generally come in within budget and within schedule IF the government issued a realistic contract in the first place. A contractor is not likely to underbid or misrepresent what he can do if there is a penalty involved for doing so. It is my experience that those contractors who are rewarded for coming in within budget and on time generally manage to do so.

When I hire a contractor he doesn't get paid for anything other than maybe the actual cost of the materials until the job is done to my satisfaction. So, he doesn't dawdle, he doesn't cut corners without my permission, and he comes in within budget. It's the best way to do business. You could even say it is the MACean way to do business.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

It is my experience that those contractors who are penalized for going over budget and substantially over schedule generally come in within budget and within schedule IF the government issued a realistic contract in the first place. A contractor is not likely to underbid or misrepresent what he can do if there is a penalty involved for doing so. It is my experience that those contractors who are rewarded for coming in within budget and on time generally manage to do so.

When I hire a contractor he doesn't get paid for anything other than maybe the actual cost of the materials until the job is done to my satisfaction. So, he doesn't dawdle, he doesn't cut corners without my permission, and he comes in within budget. It's the best way to do business. You could even say it is the MACean way to do business.

Has it been your experience that ANY State or Federal government writes up contracts in this fashion? Or are you just describing how it SHOULD be?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I've been (and frequently am) in a position to talk with contractors who work for local, state, and federal governments and this is what they tell me. If they get paid as much or more anyway, they are usually in no hurry to finish a project but will likely take other jobs and work on those at inervals instead. There is no particular incentive to do it right the first time if they get paid more for redoing it. They LOVE changes in the specs because they get paid more for doing the changes. Cost overruns are as often intentional as not when the government authority can be persuaded to cover them.

Further I see the balance sheets for some of those government projects. Almost without exception, even in the case of the most honorable and honest contractors, the amount of a government contract for materials, wages, and overhead is going to be substantially more than the same contract completed in the private sector. That is why government contracts are so lucrative and coveted though there are some who don't want them because they don't want all the extra paper work and regulation that goes with them.

When you're spending your own money, you're a lot more particular about getting value for the dollar spent. Government bureaucrats, however, aren't spending their own money and don't care nearly about value received nearly as much. Also in government there is no reward for coming in under budget. That's a sure way to get your next year's budget cut. So, there is strong incentive to spend all the money allocated and more if you can.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Really? If such happened here, you could visit your friends ... they've half an hour per week to get visits in prison here.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Well, as I've said before, in some cases, we could take some very good lessons from the way you do it there.

Sometimes contractors here seriously underestimate their gross receipts or annual payroll for their general liability or work comp policies. When I ask them why the underestimate, as often as not I am told that they weren't any more busy, but they did a lot more government work than usual in the past year. It shouldn't be that way.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I should add that all public works above about $ 7,500 have to be advertised in all EU-countries.

But what you describe there, Foxfyre, sounds really like you lived in a third world country .... 40 years back from now. Or in some Balkan country during commie times.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

No it isn't anywhere near that bad, Walter. But it is illustrative of government that has gotten too big, tries to do too much that it is poorly equipped to do, costs too much, and is far too fat and complacent to care if they waste the taxpayer's money.

It's not widely advertised of course, but for instance there are acres and acres of enormous government warehouses in or near Washington DC that are chock full of perfectly good furniture, equipment, decorations, etc. that were never used or were pulled out of senators', congresspersons', bureaucrats' etc. office. Each new person coming in is not expected to use the stuff his/her predecesor uses but has a lucrative allowance to fully redecorate from the sheetrock out. The old stuff, some that has been there for two years or less, is hauled off to the warehouse where it stays forever presumably until it rots. It is not given to the poor. It is not sold or auctioned off. It is simply stored. (The 60 Minutes documentary that first aired this situation was some years ago, but I'm guessing the policy and situation has not changed.)

The stuff agencies like FEMA and the Defense Dept are even worse.

I don't know what the answer is, but surely there is a better way to be a public servant than to spend as much as you possibly can manage to spend.

2 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know