Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
2 Pages12>
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Zero2Cool  
#1 Posted : Monday, November 12, 2012 9:19:34 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,870
Applause Received: 2,048

Many of us have accepted we have to pay taxes and some are fine with it. Some feel too much is being paid. Some feel more should be taken.

My question to you is ... where do you want that money to go? How do you want it used? Answer that in a fashion that makes YOU content with how much you're paying.


Example, I'm fine with paying taxes provided the schools are top notch and the roads are good.

Something on those lines, but with more depth and thought out more thoroughly.
UserPostedImage
Sponsor
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#2 Posted : Monday, November 12, 2012 9:28:06 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 11
Applause Received: 352

I am fine with paying taxes as long as what is paid is not wasted or abused. I think anything that private entities can provide should not be provided by government (example TSA). I think we should expect family members to take care of their family members instead of government. That is the way it use to be, and it worked fine.

The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Offline DakotaT  
#3 Posted : Monday, November 12, 2012 9:33:12 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 642
Applause Received: 1,320

My taxes should go to pay for people like Cheesey who can't work anymore because of medical reasons. They should not go for appropriations to finance the war machine so that wealthy stockholders in Haliburton make more blood money in the market.
UserPostedImage
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#4 Posted : Monday, November 12, 2012 9:36:22 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 11
Applause Received: 352

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
My taxes should go to pay for people like Cheesey who can't work anymore because of medical reasons. They should not go for appropriations to finance the war machine so that wealthy stockholders in Haliburton make more blood money in the market.


Why not just donate your money directly to people who can't work? Is that to much effort. Need to have somebody else do for you?
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Offline DakotaT  
#5 Posted : Monday, November 12, 2012 9:43:28 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 642
Applause Received: 1,320

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins Go to Quoted Post
Why not just donate your money directly to people who can't work? Is that to much effort. Need to have somebody else do for you?


Because I can't afford both, and I have to by law pay Federal Income Tax. I make donations to children's cancer research because of what my daughter went through.
UserPostedImage
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#6 Posted : Monday, November 12, 2012 9:46:08 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 11
Applause Received: 352

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
Because I can't afford both, and I have to by law pay Federal Income Tax. I make donations to children's cancer research because of what my daughter went through.


If you didn't get the point of the thread. It is not about what is, it is about what you think should be. Do you think government knows what you want your money to go to better than you know what you want to give your money to.

Would you not prefer being able to give more to children's cancer research?
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Offline DakotaT  
#7 Posted : Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:03:10 AM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 642
Applause Received: 1,320

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins Go to Quoted Post
If you didn't get the point of the thread. It is not about what is, it is about what you think should be. Do you think government knows what you want your money to go to better than you know what you want to give your money to.

Would you not prefer being able to give more to children's cancer research?


Sorry man, I don't live in a fantasy world where our country's economics is left up to human kindness, because I don't believe there is enough of it to make it work. This country badly needs infrastructure attention, not war machine attention anymore.

I understood the thread, and I commented on where I'd like to see my tax dollars go.
UserPostedImage
Offline Rockmolder  
#8 Posted : Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:12:12 AM(UTC)
Rockmolder

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2010

Netherlands
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 147
Applause Received: 243

Two posts in and we're on redistribution of wealth again.

I agree with Dakota, though. I'd like to see my tax dollars help those who need it and don't give a break to those who don't. I'd like to see that whether I'd make €1,000.- a month or €1,000,000.-.

Maybe even more importantly, education. It all starts with education. And not education for those who happen to be good at sports or have wealthy parents, but proper education for every single person. Of course, you can leave some kind of financial dependence in as motivation to not screw around and get through college, but everyone should be able to afford to make something of his/her life.
UserPostedImage
Offline Pack93z  
#9 Posted : Tuesday, November 13, 2012 7:13:39 AM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 383
Applause Received: 1,027

This is such a loaded question, that one should write a verbosely response upon. ( But I will make it brief.)

1. Infrastructure - Roadways, Airways and other means of travel and communication. The economy and our way of life depends upon these avenues. On the communication aspect, the governments purpose there is to provide the resources (easement and installation pathways) for the companies to provide the service. Not to head the effort, just to provide the necessary support to allow the services to be installed. Basically, within the right of ways for the roadways or along the roadways in which the company contracts the land from a private citizen or entity.

2. Human Services - As Dakota notated, provide for those that truly cannot provide for themselves. Sure we could rely upon donations, but when push comes to shove, will those lines of donations cease. Having the government (which should be a neutral administrator, but realistically isn't) oversee the placement of funds, will ensure that they get the assistance they need. Education would fall within this sector as it provides a basic human service for the good of the country.

3. Regulatory arm of the financial markets - Again, should be a neutral party without biased interest in making sure that the dealings are made in a fair and ethical manner within the letter of the laws. Not influencing the markets, but in the same, making sure their is no undue influence favoring any party.

4. Judicial system - Another aspect that should be a neutral party providing the enforcement of common laws and disputes.

5. Defense - As much as we wish that it wasn't needed, realistically it is needed. However, oversight of spending should be more prevalent than it currently is. This is probably the hardest of the arms of the government to set spending upon and determining actual need. The needs probably change daily.

That is basically my expectations of the government in about a concise of a statement possible. A body that represents the well being of the people and nothing more; a non biased public servant.
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline Wade  
#10 Posted : Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:26:31 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 645
Applause Received: 657

Primary requirement: Only spend on activities for which the government actor has a comparative advantage (i.e. can do it better, at a lower opportunity cost, than any market actor could).

First example: Various "security" and "war" services: Marines, Army, Navy, Air Force combat personnel. Coast Guard search and rescue. The uniformed beat cop. Fire departments. Criminal court. Border control to prevent entry of criminals and infectious diseases.

Does not include such things such as REMF functions, police detectives, or anyone or any function provided bye the so-called "Department of Homeland Security". Does not include enforcers of "limit immigration" laws.

Second example: Licensing of renewable resources where without some mechanism to exclude users, the renewable resource would be used up. Fishing and hunting licenses, for example. Park rangers and the collection of fees for use of public parks, wilderness preserves, and the like.

Third example: (Some) roads, bridges, navigable waterways, coastlines, and the like. Not all, however -- if it is possible to prevent free-riders (e.g. by tolls), then there is no need for the government to be involved. City streets -- yes. Interstate tollways, no.

Secondary requirement: Only if the government and those who work for it are willing to accept civil liability for breach of contract and for intentional and negligent torts they commit. No sovereign immunity except in cases of bona fide emergency national defense in response to outside aggression by other states. And absolutely no immunity to be extended to elected officials, non-combat personnel, general officer in any service, or any civilian employee with a title of "Assistant Secretary of ..." or above, that is not also extendable to non-government individuals.




And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Offline Wade  
#11 Posted : Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:32:39 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 645
Applause Received: 657

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
Sorry man, I don't live in a fantasy world where our country's economics is left up to human kindness, because I don't believe there is enough of it to make it work.


The possibility of DakotaT being correct on this is why "charitable contributions" remains my only "tax deduction." It's also why I chose my tax rate of 10% -- tax to me is justified only if we justify it as a sort of secular tithe. I do believe we have a moral obligation to those less fortunate and I also agree that people can't be relied on to satisfy that moral obligation on their own. They don't have to give to a particulasarc charity, but they must be charitable to some degree.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Offline Pack93z  
#12 Posted : Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:42:35 AM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 383
Applause Received: 1,027

Originally Posted by: Wade Go to Quoted Post
Primary requirement: Only spend on activities for which the government actor has a comparative advantage (i.e. can do it better, at a lower opportunity cost, than any market actor could).


Here is my issue with Market based "actors".

They have and will always have one primary agenda, turning a profit. Which then brings in a ethical question and in many cases no checks to keep them in balance.

Example. Red Cross.

They have noble intentions, however without a paying customer base, there is no check system in place to ensure that their primary objectives as a organization are kept in line. Hence we have a organization that actually utilizes incoming funds very poorly for their intended purpose. Helping people.

Now imagine if they were under a contract of sorts to provide those services.. they would be performing as poorly as some of the government programs do.

Again, in my eyes, we need to kick the government back into what they should be and not what they are. A non biased, public servant for the good of the people, all people. Not just those that can afford to contribute to the campaign machines.
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline Wade  
#13 Posted : Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:57:42 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 645
Applause Received: 657

Originally Posted by: Pack93z Go to Quoted Post
Here is my issue with Market based "actors".

They have and will always have one primary agenda, turning a profit. Which then brings in a ethical question and in many cases no checks to keep them in balance.

Example. Red Cross.

They have noble intentions, however without a paying customer base, there is no check system in place to ensure that their primary objectives as a organization are kept in line. Hence we have a organization that actually utilizes incoming funds very poorly for their intended purpose. Helping people.

Now imagine if they were under a contract of sorts to provide those services.. they would be performing as poorly as some of the government programs do.

Again, in my eyes, we need to kick the government back into what they should be and not what they are. A non biased, public servant for the good of the people, all people. Not just those that can afford to contribute to the campaign machines.


Yes, but if you give the task to someone who can't do it as cheaply, you're also using your funds poorly. IMO the Red Cross wouldn't be able to get away with their inefficiency were they subject to the market constraints that those evil profit-seekers would. Because they'd either fix things or they'd be bankrupt.

The problem isn't profit-seeking. The problem is profit-seeking combined with government-instituted insulation from the bad consequences of their choices: in the case of the Red Cross, that insulation comes from their tax-reducing status as a not-for-profit; in the case of the current for-profit corporations, it is the protection offered by limited shareholder liability and an unlimited lifespan.

That's why the absolute requirement has to be "only if they have an actual comparative advantage." And why any grant of power to the state must NOT be accompanied with insulation from civil liability. Because acting through the state ALWAYS yields insulation of the decision-maker from market constraints otherwise. Always.

Noble intentions are never enough. That's why DakotaT's position, while noble as aspirations and showing him to be as compassionate as anyone can be, the kind of person one wants as a friend and neighbor and fellow citizen, is wrong. Noble intentions alone merely pave the way to hell. Because, unfortunately, whether one is in the private sector or the public one, there are far too many people who don't share his moral character, people who, if you insulate them from the consequences of their choices will make bad choices.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Offline wpr  
#14 Posted : Tuesday, November 13, 2012 3:50:13 PM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,844
Applause Received: 1,370

I think we should give all our money to the government and trust that they will take care of us from the cradle to the grave.
"You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em." Chesty Puller



UserPostedImage

Offline DakotaT  
#15 Posted : Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:10:24 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 642
Applause Received: 1,320

Originally Posted by: wpr Go to Quoted Post
I think we should give all our money to the government and trust that they will take care of us from the cradle to the grave.


You forgot your sarcasm smiley! Big Grin
UserPostedImage
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Recent Topics
4m / Green Bay Packers Talk / MintBaconDrivel

26m / Green Bay Packers Talk / texaspackerbacker

30m / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

32m / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / texaspackerbacker

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / blueleopard

22h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DoddPower

22h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

1-Sep / Random Babble / nyrpack

1-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / nyrpack

1-Sep / Around The NFL / nyrpack

1-Sep / Around The NFL / nyrpack

1-Sep / Around The NFL / nyrpack

1-Sep / Around The NFL / nyrpack


Tweeter

Copyright © 2006-2014 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.